ellauri032.html on line 245: To understand the method which Pascal employs, the reader must be prepared to follow the process of the mind of the intelligent believer. The Christian thinker – and I mean the man who is trying consciously and conscientiously to explain to himself the sequence which culminates in faith, rather than the public apologist – proceeds by rejection and elimination. … To the unbeliever, this method seems disingenuous and perverse: for the unbeliever is, as a rule, not so greatly troubled to explain the world to himself, nor so greatly distressed by its disorder; nor is he generally concerned (in modern terms) to ‘preserve values’. He does not consider that if certain emotional states, certain developments of character, and what in the highest sense can be called ‘saintliness’ are inherently and by inspection known to be good, then the satisfactory explanation of the world must be an explanation which will admit the ‘reality’ of these values. Nor does he consider such reasoning admissible; he would, so to speak, trim his values according to his cloth, because to him such values are of no great value. The unbeliever starts from the other end, and as likely as not with the question: Is a case of human parthenogenesis credible? and this he would call going straight to the heart of the matter.
ellauri034.html on line 543: In 1975 the Nigerian writer Chinua Achebe published an essay, "An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad´s ´Heart of Darkness´", which provoked controversy by calling Conrad a "thoroughgoing racist". Achebe´s view was that Heart of Darkness cannot be considered a great work of art because it is "a novel which celebrates... dehumanisation, which depersonalises a portion of the human race." Referring to Conrad as a "talented, tormented man", Achebe notes that Conrad (via the protagonist, Charles Marlow) reduces and degrades Africans to "limbs", "ankles", "glistening white eyeballs", etc., while simultaneously (and fearfully) suspecting a common kinship between himself and these natives—leading Marlow to sneer the word "ugly." Achebe also cited Conrad´s description of an encounter with an African: "A certain enormous buck nigger encountered in Haiti fixed my conception of blind, furious, unreasoning rage, as manifested in the human animal to the end of my days." Achebe´s essay, a landmark in postcolonial discourse, provoked debate, and the questions it raised have been addressed in most subsequent literary criticism of Conrad.
ellauri061.html on line 195: The next critic known to comment on the play was John Dryden, writing in 1677. He was preoccupied with the question of whether fairies should be depicted in theatrical plays, since they did not exist. He concluded that poets should be allowed to depict things which do not exist but derive from popular belief. And fairies are of this sort, as are pigmies and the extraordinary effects of magic. Based on this reasoning, Dryden defended the merits of three fantasy plays: A Midsummer Night's Dream, The Tempest, and Ben Jonson's Masque of Witches. Varmaan se olis pitänyt Kiekkomaailmastakin ja Valtaistuinpelistä. Ja Harry Potterista.
ellauri089.html on line 578: § 84. The fact that the metaphysical writers who, like Green, attempt to base Ethics on Volition, do not even attempt this independent investigation, shows that they start from the false assumption that goodness is identical with being willed, and hence that their ethical reasonings have no value whatsoever. …
ellauri096.html on line 55: Michael Scriven (1964) tried to refute predictive determinism (the thesis that all events are foreseeable), by conjuring two players, “Predictor” who has all the data, laws, and calculating capacity needed to predict the choices of others. Scriven goes on to imagine, “Avoider”, whose dominant motivation is to avoid prediction. Therefore, Predictor must conceal his prediction. The catch is that Avoider has access to the same data, laws, and calculating capacity as Predictor. Thus Avoider can duplicate Predictor’s reasoning. Consequently, the optimal predictor cannot predict Avoider. Let the teacher be Avoider and the student be Predictor. Avoider must win. Therefore, it is possible to give a surprise test. This sounds silly. The Predictor can predict that the Avoider double guesses her. Both can fiture out that this will go on and on, until time runs out, and they still just sit on their asses doing nothing. Thing is, you must remember that the players are part of the game, not outside of it as idealists would have it.
ellauri096.html on line 90: W. V. Quine (1953) agrees with Weiss’ conclusion that the teacher’s announcement of a surprise test fails to give the student knowledge that there will be a surprise test. Yet Quine abominates Weiss’ reasoning. Weiss breeches the law of bivalence (which states that every proposition has a truth-value, true or false). Quine believes that the riddle of the surprise test should not be answered by surrendering classical logic. Me too. Right on Willard van Orman Quine! Thumbs up!
ellauri096.html on line 136: Foundationalists reject (1). They take some propositions to be self-evident. Coherentists reject (2). They tolerate some forms of circular reasoning. For instance, Nelson Goodman (1965) has characterized the method of reflective equilibrium as virtuously circular. Charles Peirce (1933–35, 5.250) rejected (3), an approach later refined by Peter Klein (2007) and championed at book-length by Scott F. Aikin (2011). Infinitists believe that infinitely long chains of justification are no more impossible than infinitely long chains of causation. Finally, the epistemological anarchist rejects (4). As Paul Feyerabend refrains in Against Method, “Anything goes” (1988, vii, 5, 14, 19, 159).
ellauri096.html on line 142: If you know that your beliefs are jointly inconsistent, then you should reject R. M. Sainsbury’s definition of a paradox as “an apparently unacceptable conclusion derived by apparently acceptable reasoning from apparently acceptable premises” (1995, 1). Take the negation of any of your beliefs as a conclusion and your remaining beliefs as the premises. You should judge this jumble argument as valid, and as having premises that you accept, and yet as having a conclusion you reject (Sorensen 2003b, 104–110). If the conclusion of this argument counts as a paradox, then the negation of any of your beliefs counts as a paradox.
ellauri096.html on line 177: The (K-0) argument stinks of the liar paradox. Subsequent commentators sloppily switch the negation sign in the formal presentations of the reasoning from K∼p
ellauri096.html on line 182: Is (K) true? On the one hand, if (K) is true, then what it says is true, so no one knows it. On the other hand, that very reasoning seems to be a proof of (K). Proving a proposition is sufficient for knowledge of it, so someone must know (K). But then (K) is false! Since no one can know a proposition that is false, (K) is not known.
ellauri096.html on line 257: Binkley illuminates this reasoning with doxastic logic. The inference rules for this logic of belief can be understood as idealizing the student into an ideal reasoner. In general terms, an ideal reasoner is someone who infers what he ought and refrains from inferring any more than he ought. Since there is no constraint on his premises, we may disagree with the ideal reasoner. But if we agree with the ideal reasoner’s premises, we appear bound to agree with his conclusion. Binkley specifies some requirements to give teeth to the student’s status as an ideal reasoner: the student is perfectly consistent, believes all the logical consequences of his beliefs, and does not forget. Binkley further assumes that the ideal reasoner is aware that he is an ideal reasoner. According to Binkley, this ensures that if the ideal reasoner believes p, then he believes that he will believe p thereafter.
ellauri096.html on line 305: Dogmatists accept this reasoning. For them, knowledge closes inquiry. Any “evidence” that conflicts with what is known can be dismissed as misleading evidence. Forewarned is forearmed.
ellauri096.html on line 777: Aristotle, on the other hand, took a more empirical approach to the question, acknowledging that we intuitively believe in akrasia. He distances himself from the Socratic position by locating the breakdown of reasoning in an agent’s opinion, not his appetition. Now, without recourse to appetitive desires, Aristotle reasons that akrasia occurs as a result of opinion. Opinion is formulated mentally in a way that may or may not imitate truth, while appetites are merely desires of the body. Thus, opinion is only incidentally aligned with or opposed to the good, making an akratic action the product of opinion instead of reason. For Aristotle, the antonym of akrasia is enkrateia, which means "in power" (over oneself).
ellauri096.html on line 806: In Piaget´s theory of cognitive development, the third stage is called the Concrete Operational Stage. During this stage, which occurs from age 7-12, the child shows increased use of logic or reasoning. One of the important processes that develops is that of Seriation, which refers to the ability to sort objects or situations according to any characteristic, such as size, color, shape, or type. For example, the child would be able to look at his plate of mixed vegetables and eat everything except the brussels sprouts.
ellauri097.html on line 149: Mencken repeatedly identified mathematics with metaphysics and theology. According to Mencken, mathematics is necessarily infected with metaphysics because of the tendency of many mathematical people to engage in metaphysical speculation. In a review of Alfred North Whitehead's The Aims of Education, Mencken remarked that, while he agreed with Whitehead's thesis and admired his writing style, "now and then he falls into mathematical jargon and pollutes his discourse with equations," and "[t]here are moments when he seems to be following some of his mathematical colleagues into the gaudy metaphysics which now entertains them."[50] For Mencken, theology is characterized by the fact that it uses correct reasoning from false premises. Mencken also uses the term "theology" more generally, to refer to the use of logic in science or any other field of knowledge. In a review for both Arthur Eddington's The Nature of the Physical World and Joseph Needham's Man a Machine, Mencken ridiculed the use of reasoning to establish any fact in science, because theologians happen to be masters of "logic" and yet are mental defectives:
ellauri097.html on line 159: In the same article which he later re-printed in the Mencken Chrestomathy, Mencken primarily contrasts what real scientists do, which is to simply directly look at the existence of "shapes and forces" confronting them instead of (such as in statistics) attempting to speculate and use mathematical models. Physicists and especially astronomers are consequently not real scientists, because when looking at shapes or forces, they do not simply "patiently wait for further light," but resort to mathematical theory. There is no need for statistics in scientific physics, since one should simply look at the facts while statistics attempts to construct mathematical models. On the other hand, the really competent physicists do not bother with the "theology" or reasoning of mathematical theories (such as in quantum mechanics):
ellauri100.html on line 523: Low = formal; high = intuitive reasoning. Also, scores of zero are common. It simply means you chose all formal reasoning options.
ellauri100.html on line 525: Lest you conclude that intuitiveness precludes knowledge and sound reasoning, look at the next three results.
ellauri100.html on line 547: The idea behind this scale is that objective factual knowledge may be an important factor in studies about political issues and reasoning. It may be that people who are more informed about politics (whether they’re liberal or conservative) think and reason differently about moral or political issues than people who are less informed. For instance, are people who are more informed more or less likely to objectively evaluate political arguments? We suspect that, ironically, people with more political knowledge may be less objective when it comes to a number of information processes (see recommended reading below).
ellauri108.html on line 147: One of the central activities at groundings is "reasoning". This is a discussion among assembled Rastas about the religion's principles and their relevance to current events. These discussions are supposed to be non-combative, although attendees can point out the fallacies in any arguments presented. Those assembled inform each other about the revelations that they have received through meditation and dream. Each contributor is supposed to push the boundaries of understanding until the entire group has gained greater insight into the topic under discussion. In meeting together with like-minded individuals, reasoning helps Rastas to reassure one another of the correctness of their beliefs. Rastafari meetings are opened and closed with prayers. These involve supplication of God, the supplication for the hungry, sick, and infants, and calls for the destruction of the Rastas' enemies, and then close with statements of adoration.
ellauri108.html on line 152: Nyabinghi Issemblies typically take place in rural areas, being situated in the open air or in temporary structures—known as "temples" or "tabernacles"—specifically constructed for the purpose. Any elder seeking to sponsor a Nyabinghi Issembly must have approval from other elders and requires the adequate resources to organise such an event. The assembly usually lasts between three and seven days. During the daytime, attendees engage in food preparation, ganja smoking, and reasoning, while at night they focus on drumming and dancing around bonfires. Nyabinghi Issemblies often attract Rastas from a wide area, including from different countries. They establish and maintain a sense of solidarity among the Rasta community and cultivate a feeling of collective belonging. Unlike in many other religions, rites of passage play no role in Rastafari; on death, various Rastas have been given Christian funerals by their relatives, as there are no established Rasta funeral rites.
ellauri108.html on line 164: Rastafari music developed at reasoning sessions, where drumming, chanting, and dancing are all present. Rasta music is performed to praise and commune with Jah, and to reaffirm the rejection of Babylon. Rastas believe that their music has healing properties, with the ability to cure colds, fevers, and headaches. Many of these songs are sung to the tune of older Christian hymns, but others are original Rasta creations.
ellauri108.html on line 239: The Bobo Ashanti sect was founded in Jamaica by Emanuel Charles Edwards through the establishment of his Ethiopia Africa Black International Congress (EABIC) in 1958. The group established a commune in Bull Bay, where they were led by Edwards until his 1994 death. The group hold to a highly rigid ethos. Edwards advocated the idea of a new trinity, with Haile Selassie as the living God, himself as the Christ, and Garvey as the prophet. Male members are divided into two categories: the "priests" who conduct religious services and the "prophets" who take part in reasoning sessions. It places greater restrictions on women than most other forms of Rastafari; women are regarded as impure because of menstruation and childbirth and so are not permitted to cook for men. The group teaches that black Africans are God's chosen people and are superior to white Europeans, with members often refusing to associate with white people. Bobo Ashanti Rastas are recognisable by their long, flowing robes and turbans.
ellauri108.html on line 258: Some Rastas have left the religion. Clarke noted that among British Rastas, some returned to Pentecostalism and other forms of Christianity, while others embraced Islam or no religion. Some English ex-Rastas described disillusionment when the societal transformation promised by Rastafari failed to appear, while others felt that while Rastafari would be appropriate for agrarian communities in Africa and the Caribbean, it was not suited to industrialised British society. Others experienced disillusionment after developing the view that Haile Selassie had been an oppressive leader of the Ethiopian people. Cashmore found that some British Rastas who had more militant views left the religion after finding its focus on reasoning and music insufficient for the struggle against white domination and racism.
ellauri158.html on line 694: Hence also it follows, that everyone thought out for himself, according to his abilities, a different way of worshipping God, so that God might love him more than his fellows, and direct the whole course of nature for the satisfaction of his blind cupidity and insatiable avarice. Thus the prejudice developed into superstition, and took deep root in the human mind; and for this reason everyone strove most zealously to understand and explain the final causes of things; but in their endeavor to show that nature does nothing in vain, i.e. nothing which is useless to man, they only seem to have demonstrated that nature, the gods, and men are all mad together. Consider, I pray you, the result: among the many helps of nature they were bound to find some hindrances, such as storms, earthquakes, diseases, &c.: so they declared that such things happen, because the gods are angry at some wrong done to them by men, or at some fault committed in their worship. Experience day by day protested and showed by infinite examples, that good and evil fortunes fall to the lot of pious and impious alike; still they would not abandon their inveterate prejudice, for it was more easy for them to class such contradictions among other unknown things of whose use they were ignorant, and thus to retain their actual and innate condition of ignorance, than to destroy the whole fabric of their reasoning and start afresh. They therefore laid down as an axiom, that God´s judgments far transcend human understanding. Such a doctrine might well have sufficed to conceal the truth from the human race for all eternity, if mathematics had not furnished another standard of verity in considering solely the essence and properties of figures without regard to their final causes. There are other reasons (which I need not mention here) besides mathematics, which might have caused men´s minds to be directed to these general prejudices, and have led them to the knowledge of the truth.
ellauri159.html on line 1295: If they write anything but checks, their writing can have a sense of inevitability, presenting an orderly progression of facts and ideas that can lead to only one possible conclusion. Their authoritative voice can instill a sense of comfort and trust in readers. Make sure that trust is warranted—use your natural skepticism to seek out possible flaws in your reasoning and research. Steer clear of the anti-trust laws, they can cut your earnings.
ellauri184.html on line 80: Mailer's fifth novel, Why Are We in Vietnam? was even more experimental in its prose than An American Dream. Published in 1967, the critical reception of WWVN was mostly positive with many critics, like John Aldridge in Harper's, calling the novel a masterpiece and comparing it to Joyce. Mailer's obscene language was criticized by critics such as Granville Hicks writing in the Saturday Review and the anonymous reviewer in Time. Eliot Fremont-Smith calls WWVN "the most original, courageous and provocative novel so far this year" that's likely to be "mistakenly reviled". Other critics, such as Denis Donoghue from the New York Review of Books praised Mailer for his verisimilitude "for the sensory event". Donoghue recalls Josephine Miles' study of the American Sublime, reasoning WWVN's voice and style as the drive behind Mailer's impact.
ellauri236.html on line 376: In New York City, a local goon and gang leader named Riley learns that the wealthy socialist Miss Blandish will be wearing an expensive diamond necklace to her birthday celebration. Riley and his gang plan to steal the necklace and ransom it. The inept criminals manage to kidnap Miss Blandish and her boyfriend, but after the latter is accidentally killed they instead decide to hold Miss Blandish ransom, reasoning that her millionaire father will pay more to get his daughter back safely than the necklace is worth.
ellauri260.html on line 410: Hence it would indeed be a fine thing if each spoke for himself (hōs hekastos), saying "mine." But in Socrates' regime, all, when they say "mine," speak only collectively, on behalf of the polis (462d8-e3). Aristotle contends that for them to speak for themselves is impossible. Why? His reasoning turns on the nebulous connection among citizens established by familial communism. He says:
ellauri285.html on line 755: The first consequential re-evaluation of the mathematical modeling behind the critical positivity ratio was published in 2008 by a group of Finnish researchers from the Systems Analysis Laboratory at Aalto University (Jukka Luoma, Raimo Hämäläinen, and Esa Saarinen). The authors noted that "only very limited explanations are given about the modeling process and the meaning and interpretation of its parameters... [so that] the reasoning behind the model equations remains unclear to the reader"; moreover, they noted that "the model also produces strange and previously unreported behavior under certain conditions... [so that] the predictive validity of the model also becomes problematic."
ellauri375.html on line 301: Not at all! I aim to provide helpful and informative responses based on the knowledge and reasoning available to me. If I ever fall short, just let me know, and I'll do my best to clarify or improve.
ellauri389.html on line 405: Meanwhile Lloyd was placed in an asylum near York, from which he escaped about 1818, and found his way back to Westmoreland, where he suddenly reappeared at De Quincey's cottage. De Quincey vividly describes his condition and conversation, but does not mention, what he privately told Woodhouse, that Lloyd laboured to convince him of his (Lloyd's) identity with the devil, and in trying to establish this assertion ultimately reasoned himself out of it. This anecdote confirms the testimony of Talfourd: "Poor Charles Lloyd! Delusions of the most melancholy kind thickened over his latter days, yet left his admirable intellect free for the finest processes of severe reasoning."
xxx/ellauri027.html on line 1060: Paphos seminar remains fundamentally a project of Western orientation, with a strong emphasis on reasoning and language. If (to use a deliberately stereotypical example) a no-nonsense middle-aged male engineer comes to the seminar, as often happens, I find it important that he does not find anything in the seminar suspicious even in retrospect. Nobody should be lured into doing something he or she might find embarrassing afterwards.
xxx/ellauri104.html on line 347: Justify your reasoning in every step to find the right diagnosis, don't just create a label for unknown things!
xxx/ellauri179.html on line 574: “They kill them for less nowadays,” Papa said. There they were, less than three hours after meeting, and Papa's motive had completely changed. He wanted to warn Ole Anderson but didn't think he'd do anything about it anyway. He thought there was no reasoning with Nick Adams either.
xxx/ellauri307.html on line 420: The above illustrates how a fallacy in reasoning can persist and maim the minds of believers for thousands of years. First we make ourselves more important than ants, second we attribute meaning to chance third we accept suffering caused by ignorance and malice as the will of a higher being.
36