Showing posts with label Reasoning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reasoning. Show all posts

June 15, 2021

Paranoid or Not

Thought this was a great quote on paranoia:

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean someone's not out to get me.

Think about that one a little. ;-)

(Credit Photo: Andy Blumenthal)


Share/Save/Bookmark

July 9, 2018

Persuasion x 3

I liked this categorization of three types of tools of persuasion developed by Aristotle: 

- Ethos: Appeals to a sense of ethics, morals, and character. 

- Logos: Appeals to a sense of logic, reason, and rationality.

- Pathos: Appeals to a sense of emotion, empathy, and passion. 

I don't know about most people, but I don't get convinced easily. 

You need to show me, prove it to me, or convince me it's right. 

Some others, and I don't know why--it's like you can sell them the Brooklyn Bridge, as they say.  

I think that's dangerous!

Without critical thinking and evaluation, people can get led astray to do the wrong things...a perfect example is Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler (may his memory be forever cursed).  

Hitler appealed to the Germans people at the time:
- Emotionally to bring them back from the loss, destruction, and destitution that World War I inflicted and of course, to scapegoat the Jews, Gypsies, and political opponents and send them to the death camps. 
- Logically, that they were a strong and powerful people, the "Aryan nation," and they therefore, deserved to conquer and rule Europe and the World.
- Ethically--let's just say, this one didn't really apply to Hitler, probably the most evil and destructive man this world has ever known, except that even Hitler tried to fool his people falsely proclaiming, "G-d is with us!"

It's a war of good over evil out there, and we need to make our arguments to influence and persuade for the good, but we also have to be careful not to let others, who are not so good, manipulate us for their own selfish and depraved ends. 

Ethos, Logos, and Pathos--potent tools or weapons in the direction of mankind and civilization. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Share/Save/Bookmark

May 28, 2017

Arguing The Negative

I thought this was an interesting sign this gentlemen had.

It says:


"Those who reject Jesus do so because of sin, not science or evidence."

Overall, religion is a matter of personal faith not to be argued, but rather when based to good, to be wholly respected. 

This argument though was basically saying, not to reject this particular tenet of faith of a major religion because there is "not science or evidence" from which to reject.

But usually, don't we look for science or evidence to accept or do something. 

In other words, the default usually is that if you want me to believe in something or somebody, prove to me why I should

It's a bad argument when you ask me to prove to you why you shouldn't believe in something. 

Very often this is the same argument people use in relationships and in organizations.

We do the same thing everyday or over and over again, and we often don't ask ourselves why we do it this way or believe this is a good way of doing something...we just do it. 

And in fact, when someone new comes in with "fresh eyes" and questions why we do it a certain way or have we considered another approach, we ask them to prove to us with "science or evidence" why their way is better, rather than reexamine our own ways and means.

I'm not in any way questioning here G-d or religion, but rather simply our approach to self-examination, introspection, and betterment.

Don't ask me to prove to you why you should reject something, but rather be prepared to defend your hypothesis. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Share/Save/Bookmark

August 11, 2016

7 Mind-F*cking Arguments

So my daughter took a training class in critical thinking at work. 

And she brought home an excellent handout from the instructor, Haywood Spangler, about how people try to get you to their point of view, but without any real solid reasoning behind it.

My mother-in-law calls this concept in blunt terms, mind-f*cking!

Here are some examples:

1) Genetic Fallacy - Rejecting an idea based on where or who it comes from, rather than the merits of the idea itself.  I call this one, you're an idiot, so your ideas are idiotic. 

2) Circular Reasoning - Restating the conclusion, rather than proving it. I call this hammering or going no where fast. 

3) Red Herring - Diverting from the real issue as a distraction. I call this the shell game. 

4) Ad Hoc Reasoning - Coming up with a reason to simply reject your every objection. I call this just say it isn't so. 

5) False Dichotomy - Oversimplifying a complex situation and making it into only black and white. I call this my way or the highway.

6) Slippery Slope - Supposing that if one thing happens then something else terrible must necessarily follow. I call this following the false causality. 

7) Band Wagon - Everyone is doing it, so you need to also.  I call this classic groupthink or be careful not to stand in front of a moving train. 

Basically, when someone is not taking with you, but at you and trying to make you just do what they want, period, then watch out, you are probably being gloriously mind-f*cked. 

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Share/Save/Bookmark

June 15, 2015

Ex Machina Will Even Turn The Terminator

So this was a really cool display at the Movie theater yesterday...

They had this head of the Terminator in a enclosed case and roped off. 

Shiny metal alloy skull, buldging bright evil red eyes, and really grotesque yellowed teeth. 

This certainly gets the attention of passerbys for the upcoming new movie, Terminator Genisys (coming out July 1). 

Anyway, Terminator is the ugly dude especially when compared with the robot/artificial intelligence of Ava in Ex Machina that we saw yesterday. 

The Turing test is nothing for Ava!

She can not only fool them as to her humanity, but also outmanuever them with her wit, sexuality, and a good dose of deceit and manipulation. 

Frankly, I think AI Ava could even turn the terible Terminator to her side of things--my bet is that movie to come in 2017. 

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Share/Save/Bookmark

January 23, 2014

From Memorization To Thinking

Our education system continues to suffer as we rank somewhere between 17th and 20th globally. 

This means that our economy will assuredly suffer in the future from the global competition that strangles us.

Some prominent experts in the field, like Walter Isaacson, say that innovation occurs at the intersection of arts and humanities meeting science and math--and I really like that. 

Personally, this inspires me to think about whether education reform is perhaps focused too much on the teachers, tests, and core curriculum, and less on changing the way we are approaching education in the first place. 

For as long as I can remember (i.e. even when I was in school way back when), we based our education on lots of memorization--multiplication tables, periodic tables, vocabulary, history, and much more. 

For those with great short term memory, you could do very well to memorize, spit it out, and forget it, so you can start all over again with the next great wave of facts and figures. 

The emphasis on memorization of basics, is important in getting a foundation of knowledge, but seems to me to come at the expense of critical thinking and problem solving skills. 

From my own experience and watching my kids in school, I often see boredom at raw facts, and excitement and self-satisfaction at figuring something out. 

Yet, too often students are asked to do rote memorization and test accordingly, rather than really think. 

You can't memorize innovation, but rather you need to be able to apply learning. 

In this day and age, where facts are but a Google search away, memorization is less important and real analytical, reasoning, problem solving, and communication skills (all anchored in solid core values) are more relevant to our national and personal success. 

Yet, have our school caught up with this?

Unfortunately, it seems most have not, and perhaps that is one reason that many of our preeminent innovators are dropouts--from Steve Jobs to Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, Michael Dell, Henry Ford, Walt Disney, Richard Branson, Ted Turner, etc. 

Will we ever get away completely from memorizing the basics? Certainly not. Do we need to spend so much of K-12 education and even college years playing instant recall? What a waste!

The best experience that I remember from my younger daughter in school was her activities in the Ethics Bowl, where schools competed in analyzing ethically challenging situations and arguing the merits of the various sides. They learned to think and articulate their reasoning and conclusions and that is the best education that I can imagine. 

Until we stop using education techniques from the dinosaur age--memorizing species and trying to recall where the eggs are buried, I fear we are doomed to subpar educational performance--in a boring, memorizing, and non-thinking way. 

No wonder the kids want to develop the next great iPhone app and use their textbooks as a handy-dandy booster seat. ;-)

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Lansing Public Library)

Share/Save/Bookmark