Logic And Semantics

[ceagle]

Back in college, quite a few standard non-major (but required for the 4-year degree) classes were surprise hits, in other words, I found them to be very memorable and helpful along life's path (which I guess is as it should be, if college is taken as actual learning and not just a key to an administrative position somewhere).

Sociology, Civics, MacroEconomics, Theater, Fitness&Health, ....all of these come to mind as contributing a lot in both concept and practice.
And one that particularly sticks out with its generous guidance was Logic&Semantics.

Even a few of its subtle points run through my mind just about every day, such as the erroneous yet commonly mistaken phrasing, "not all of them are etc etc etc." You'd get a good verbal smackin' from the instructor if you were to use that :D ...and he'd remind us that the correct phrase is, "some of them are etc etc etc," because not all actually means none, but it's still a huge error in day to day speech and writing, not too differently from the confusion between insure and ensure... or should of vs should have... the mistake is just a common infraction that many don't even catch, and perhaps it's often seen as not worth bothering over the minutia of it.

And mom also used to be in smackin' mood if one used "different than" instead of "different from" so I'd get the nudges at home too.

Getting back to the L&S class, one of the most profound series of lectures was the exposure of Fallacies used in discussion, and giving us the skills to pick out the violations and unfair uses of language to skirt issues and cloud a decision making process. At the time, I think we only had a list of about 30 of these to memorize.

Now with the advent of the internet era, I've found lots of pages with variations on this list, and the inclusion of additional fallacies of which to be wary.

And so, if it piques your interest and you find yourself wanting to spend some of these shelter-in-place hours exploring the murk of malfeasant argumentation, this could help protect you when the bad guys sling their arrows of elocutive confusion towards you, or even into the public arena... you'll be able to raise a hand and holler, "I know what you're up to, varmint!" :}

Here's a link to one of the finest collections I've found.... I hope you enjoy!

Comments

[mondhasen.livejournal.com]

"I know what you're up to, varmint!"

Knowledge is power ;o)

[c-eagle.livejournal.com]

I think I heard Yosemite Sam's accent there..... ;>

[bunny-hugger.livejournal.com]

I have to disagree with the statement that "not all are X" means "none are X." I have taught logic, and in logic textbooks, you would be told to translate "not all are X" as not (all are X), the negation of "all are X." In other words "It is not the case that (all are X)" which in turn is logically equivalent to the statement "some are not-X."

"None are X" would instead be logically equivalent to the universal statement "All are not-X."

[c-eagle.livejournal.com]

It's kinda wild, huh? :D
I even remember that instructor's name: Richard Richards!

But yep, he was pretty stern about this one... I think we heard it mentioned every week in class... his three distinctions,

1) none are X

2) some are X

3) all are X .

He promised he'd fail anyone stepping out of line on those, so we'd just salute and stay the course unless we wanted to get an F ...

*eeeep!*

Point taken though, ...thanks!! (I must say I haven't followed his code strictly either, but I think of it every time it comes up in conversation).

[hastka.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I guess I should've read through all the replies but I mostly made the same point below; I agree. ;)

Fair enough that "do it because I say so or else" is a fair reason too, just not one rooted in primarily logic, but rather some guy using his position of authority to force people to respect his personal [and fundamentally invalid] pet peeve. ;)

[hastka.livejournal.com]

Having said this, I'm questioning your instructor's position on this, a bit. While "not all" could mean "not(infinite set)" therefore mean "null set"... I would say that once you leave a logic classroom "not all" means "not 100% of [whatever]."

For example: "not all cars have seat belts" is - I am pretty sure - a valid and correct sentence. Actually even logically I think it holds... the argument isn't "(not (all)) cars have seat belts" but rather "not (all cars have seatbelts)" which I think is a logically correct sentence? But correct me if I'm wrong. :)

I never took any kind of classic "rhetoric" (what we would've called "debate") classes, myself, though I did come to appreciate the whole "fallacy" thing. I really wish they'd made that type of class mandatory... it might really help to stop people from making shabby arguments so frequently in daily life... which I come across a LOT, it seems. :P

One thing I've noticed about myself is the use of double-negatives as a way to soften a message... like "I don't disagree with your idea." If you consider that "agreement" is a spectrum and not a binary thing, this is a completely valid point... I don't disagree, i.e. my level of agreement is not zero... but it definitely is not full agreement either. But some people view this as a bit wishy-washy so I've tried to catch myself doing this.

[c-eagle.livejournal.com]

Wow, that Word Crimes tune somehow slipped past my radar.... very enjoyable, thanks! I kinda wish he'd gone on much longer, because there's so much to cover!

It's good to hear you and bunny_hugger both question my ole teacher's declaration... since it's always been a somewhat uneasy acceptance. I do wonder if maybe he was stating it then, more on the basis of his take on the semantics rather than the logic... dunno....
I gather that his take on "not all" was identical to "every single one is not", and his convenient solution was to substitute "some" whenever a gathered sample was not completely black or white.

Excellent point also... how much value it could have to make some reasoning classes mandatory. And that's rather cute about the "I don't disagree" comeback... I think I can hear a voice with a smile speaking that when I read it :D

[hastka.livejournal.com]

Also note the livejournal plug toward the end of the video, granted when they're going through all the long-dead PC desktop. :P

There's another one in that song... if someone says "how are you doing" I still not-infrequently will say "good" rather than "well." :)

And I say "daylight savings time" - somewhat just to mess with people. :P But also because it's consistent with the sense of preservation... like, I have a "savings" account at the bank, not a "saving" account. But I digress.

I'm glad you take the teacher-comment-feedback in the way it's intended... that is another reason I sometimes avoid logic arguments; sometimes it will lead to lengthy pedantic arguments that come across as you're "picking apart" something. Which isn't always a bad thing either! But - just like people seem to no longer have patience for LJ - sometimes people don't have the patience to justify their arguments... so I guess like any tool in the drawer it's good to know how to use when needed... but also know when to NOT use it. :)

Either way it got you to think about it, which is never a bad thing for a teacher to do. :)

[allaboutweather.livejournal.com]

I took a philosophy class my freshman year in college and learned a bit about fallacies like "false dichotomy" for example.

Ah yes, one of Weird Al's songs from Mandatory Fun. :D