SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9
 
User avatar
Marsden
Topic Author
Posts: 3829
Joined: August 20th, 2001, 5:42 pm

Methods of Inquiry

October 28th, 2006, 2:09 pm

Because the logical ability of some here is so lacking, I'm starting this thread specifically to address logical gaps as opposed to substance. When someone makes a argumentatively ridiculous comment elsewhere, I'll try to move it here rather than trying to unscrammble the nonsense in order to get at any hidden point there might be.
 
User avatar
Marsden
Topic Author
Posts: 3829
Joined: August 20th, 2001, 5:42 pm

Methods of Inquiry

October 28th, 2006, 2:11 pm

Case 1:QuoteOriginally posted by: XQuoteOriginally posted by: YQuoteOriginally posted by: ZQuoteThe vanquished non-Muslims peoples are granted security for their life and possessions, as well as a relative self-autonomous administration and limited religious rights according to the modalities of the conquest. These rights are subject to two conditions: the payment of a poll tax (the jizya) and submission to the provisions of Islamic law.Hmmm... and let's see: do I get to choose whether to pay taxes to the US government, or whether to follow its laws? No. I guess you're right to call me "Dhimmi."Sorry Y but you are patetic and you latest argument are really quite peculiar. It was not only the poll tax and you know it. And if you do not, go back and study a little bit and review some concepts before you keep on posting nonsenses.Anyone care to take a stab at what is ridiculous in the last comment (I mean, aside from the ad hominen attack and the miss-spelling)?
Last edited by Marsden on October 27th, 2006, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
flairplay
Posts: 130
Joined: September 26th, 2006, 1:34 pm

Methods of Inquiry

October 28th, 2006, 7:51 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: MarsdenBecause the logical ability of some here is so lacking, I'm starting this thread specifically to address logical gaps as opposed to substance. When someone makes a argumentatively ridiculous comment elsewhere, I'll try to move it here rather than trying to unscrammble the nonsense in order to get at any hidden point there might be.Nice try M.But these gentlemen's aims are neither logic nor truth. So you wont be able to convince them. Nevertheless their methods are so clumsy that they will end up harming their own agendas.
 
User avatar
Hamilton
Posts: 5976
Joined: July 23rd, 2001, 6:25 pm

Methods of Inquiry

October 28th, 2006, 9:40 pm

But these gentlemen's aims are neither logic nor truth. So you wont be able to convince them. Nevertheless their methods are so clumsy that they will end up harming their own agendas.Quote…What I insist upon here…is this unmanly attempt of his, in his concluding pages, to cut the ground from under my feet;—to poison by anticipation the public mind against me, John Henry Newman, and to infuse into the imaginations of my readers, suspicion and mistrust of every thing that I may say in reply to him. This I call poisoning the wells.John Henry Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua
 
User avatar
flairplay
Posts: 130
Joined: September 26th, 2006, 1:34 pm

Methods of Inquiry

October 28th, 2006, 9:43 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: HamiltonBut these gentlemen's aims are neither logic nor truth. So you wont be able to convince them. Nevertheless their methods are so clumsy that they will end up harming their own agendas.Quote…What I insist upon here…is this unmanly attempt of his, in his concluding pages, to cut the ground from under my feet;—to poison by anticipation the public mind against me, John Henry Newman, and to infuse into the imaginations of my readers, suspicion and mistrust of every thing that I may say in reply to him. This I call poisoning the wells.John Henry Newman, Apologia Pro Vita SuaExcept in this case it is not poisoning the well. It is telling the truth about you. That well was poisoned by you yourself. Do contemplate.
 
User avatar
TraderJoe
Posts: 11048
Joined: February 1st, 2005, 11:21 pm

Methods of Inquiry

October 28th, 2006, 10:57 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: flairplayQuoteOriginally posted by: MarsdenBecause the logical ability of some here is so lacking, I'm starting this thread specifically to address logical gaps as opposed to substance. When someone makes a argumentatively ridiculous comment elsewhere, I'll try to move it here rather than trying to unscrammble the nonsense in order to get at any hidden point there might be.Nice try M.But these gentlemen's aims are neither logic nor truth. So you wont be able to convince them. Nevertheless their methods are so clumsy that they will end up harming their own agendas.You've been duped either by ignorance or your own free will. Either way duped you are. Ha ha.
 
User avatar
Marsden
Topic Author
Posts: 3829
Joined: August 20th, 2001, 5:42 pm

Methods of Inquiry

October 28th, 2006, 10:57 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: flairplayQuoteOriginally posted by: MarsdenBecause the logical ability of some here is so lacking, I'm starting this thread specifically to address logical gaps as opposed to substance. When someone makes a argumentatively ridiculous comment elsewhere, I'll try to move it here rather than trying to unscrammble the nonsense in order to get at any hidden point there might be.Nice try M.But these gentlemen's aims are neither logic nor truth. So you wont be able to convince them. Nevertheless their methods are so clumsy that they will end up harming their own agendas.My main interest, fp, is my own amusement. These "gentlemen" have proved themselves desrving of being foils for that end.
 
User avatar
Hamilton
Posts: 5976
Joined: July 23rd, 2001, 6:25 pm

Methods of Inquiry

October 29th, 2006, 4:29 am

QuoteType: Argumentum ad HominemAnalysisExposition:To poison the well is to commit a pre-emptive ad hominem strike against an argumentative opponent. As with regular ad hominems, the well may be poisoned in either an abusive or circumstantial way. For instance: 1. "Only an ignoramus would disagree with fluoridating water." (Abusive) 2. "My opponent is a dentist, so of course he will oppose the fluoridating of water, since he will lose business." (Circumstantial)Anyone bold enough to enter a debate which begins with a well-poisoning either steps into an insult, or an attack upon one's personal integrity. As with standard ad hominems, the debate is likely to cease to be about its nominal topic and become a debate about the arguer. However, what sets Poisoning the Well apart from the standard Ad Hominem is the fact that the poisoning is done before the opponent has a chance to make a case.Exposure:Poisoning the Well is not, strictly speaking, a logical fallacy since it is not a type of argument. Rather, it is a logical boobytrap set by the poisoner to tempt the unwary audience into committing an ad hominem fallacy. As with all forms of the ad hominem, one should keep in mind that an argument can and must stand or fall on its own, regardless of who makes it.Analysis of the Example:This is a common type of circumstantial poisoning of the well, which claims that men should either not make a judgment about abortion, or should keep it to themselves if they do. This illustrates the effect that poisoning the well tends to have, which is to forestall opposition in debate. It also shows the mistake underlying all poisoning of the well, since the sex of the arguer is irrelevant to the merits of the argument. No doubt one could always find a woman to advance the argument, whatever it is.Cauldron, Cauldron, Boil and Bubble
Last edited by Hamilton on October 28th, 2006, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Hamilton
Posts: 5976
Joined: July 23rd, 2001, 6:25 pm

Methods of Inquiry

October 29th, 2006, 4:44 am

 
User avatar
Hamilton
Posts: 5976
Joined: July 23rd, 2001, 6:25 pm

Methods of Inquiry

October 29th, 2006, 4:44 am

QuoteReview:There are three reasons why this is a valuable book on fallacies: * It is an extensive application of logic, especially logical fallacies, to an area of study, namely, history. * It has the longest list of fallacies of any book I know about: 112 are listed in the index. This makes it useful as a reference book on fallacies. Because of its focus on historical reasoning, some of these fallacies are specific to history (which is one reason why there are so many!), but most can be generalized to other areas of thought. * It is a treasure trove of real examples drawn, of course, from the works of historians.Fischer, an historian rather than a logician, works with a broad conception of "fallacy" (which is another reason why there are so many!). As a result, some of the "fallacies" are more properly boobytraps or cognitive biases, but they are no less interesting or important for all that.The book categorizes historical fallacies into eleven broad categories, of which the following are examples: * Fallacies of Question-Framing: Many Questions, for example. * Fallacies of Semantical Distortion: Ambiguity, Amphiboly, Equivocation, among others. * Fallacies of Substantive Distraction: Includes the "ad" fallacies, such as Ad Hominem.Of special interest are the two categories Fallacies of Causation and Fallacies of False Analogy, which give the best and most thorough treatments of mistakes in reasoning about causation, and by analogy, that I've ever read. In these two chapters, Fischer goes beyond application to make real contributions to the theory of fallacies.In addition to being a rich reference source for fallacies and examples of them, Historians' Fallacies is intelligently written, and makes especially good reading for those interested in history. I hope that future historians and logicians will study this book carefully, with an eye to improving both fields.
 
User avatar
Hamilton
Posts: 5976
Joined: July 23rd, 2001, 6:25 pm

Methods of Inquiry

October 29th, 2006, 4:46 am

QuoteThe phrase "poisoning the well" ultimately alludes to the medieval European myth that the black plague was caused by Jews poisoning town wells—a myth which was used as an excuse to persecute Jews.
 
User avatar
Marsden
Topic Author
Posts: 3829
Joined: August 20th, 2001, 5:42 pm

Methods of Inquiry

October 29th, 2006, 2:44 pm

Once again, your obliqueness has failed you, Hamilton.The correct answer for why the comment from Case 1 is ridiculous is that, in the Method of Inquiry known as debate, each participant makes his argument about what the truth of a situation is, and then in turn addresses the shortcomings in the arguments of other participants with opposing viewpoints.Case 1 basically goes like this:Z: "Dhimmitude is bad because the Dhimmis had to pay taxes to the Islamic government and obey Islamic law."Y: "But I have to pay taxes to the US government and obey US law. Does that make my situation equivalent to dhimmitude and therefore bad?"X: "But Dhimmitude is bad for other reasons, and you know it!"Now, if we are trying to identify what makes dhimmitude bad (or even if it is particularly bad at all), the contribution of X is just noise. Z at least makes a proposition about what makes dhimmitude bad; Y notes that according to this proposition, living in the US is bad as well, so the proposition is probably false because it leads to absurd conclusions. X, however, makes no argument whatever, nor any criticism of any argument made; he's just braying.Hamilton, perhaps you can provide the Latin name for such nonsense. I was thinking in might include "ex argumento," given that it insists on drawing in facts outside of the argument (without, however, even presenting any such facts). It's sort of a "red herring" fallacy, but it doesn't make as clean a change in subject as "red herring" generally involves.
 
User avatar
Hamilton
Posts: 5976
Joined: July 23rd, 2001, 6:25 pm

Methods of Inquiry

October 29th, 2006, 3:31 pm

Now, if we are trying to identify what makes dhimmitude bad (or even if it is particularly bad at all)Then we would provide the exact dialectical steps that Socrates did in the Platonic Dialogue Meno.
 
User avatar
Hamilton
Posts: 5976
Joined: July 23rd, 2001, 6:25 pm

Methods of Inquiry

October 29th, 2006, 3:33 pm

Hamilton, perhaps you can provide the Latin name for such nonsense. Excellent question, my good man. Having 7 wives, a small herd of livestock and all those imams to argue with can make it difficult to keep up with the latest innovations in 13th century scholasticism.The first step is to decide whether you are speaking of formal or material logical fallacies, of course.
 
User avatar
flairplay
Posts: 130
Joined: September 26th, 2006, 1:34 pm

Methods of Inquiry

October 29th, 2006, 3:42 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: HamiltonHamilton, perhaps you can provide the Latin name for such nonsense. Excellent question, my good man. Having 7 wives, a small herd of livestock and all those imams to argue with can make it difficult to keep up with the latest innovations in 13th century scholasticism.The first step is to decide whether you are speaking of formal or material logical fallacies, of course.This is not Philosophy 101 - and even then I suspect you struggled with it.
ABOUT WILMOTT

PW by JB

Wilmott.com has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...


Twitter LinkedIn Instagram

JOBS BOARD

JOBS BOARD

Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...


GZIP: On