ellauri082.html on line 87: Logical validity is a guarantee of truth, but it is pretty vacuous.
ellauri096.html on line 199: Several commentators on the surprise test paradox object that interpreting surprise as unprovability changes the topic. Instead of posing the surprise test paradox, it poses a variation of the liar paradox. Other concepts can be blended with the liar. For instance, mixing in alethic notions generates the possible liar: Is ‘This statement is possibly false’ true? (Post 1970) (If it is false, then it is false that it is possibly false. What cannot possibly be false is necessarily true. But if it is necessarily true, then it cannot be possibly false.) Since the semantic concept of validity involves the notion of possibility, one can also derive validity liars such as Pseudo-Scotus’ paradox: ‘Squares are squares, therefore, this argument is invalid’ (Read 1979). Suppose Pseudo-Scotus’ argument is valid. Since the premise is necessarily true, the conclusion would be necessarily true. But the conclusion contradicts the supposition that argument is valid. Therefore, by reductio, the argument is necessarily invalid. Wait! The argument can be invalid only if it is possible for the premise to be true and the conclusion to be false. But we have already proved that the conclusion of ‘Squares are squares, therefore, this argument is invalid’ is necessarily true. There is no consistent judgment of the argument’s validity. A similar predicament follows from ‘The test is on Friday but this prediction cannot be soundly deduced from this announcement’.
ellauri097.html on line 416: Nietzsche meant that Kant established the validity of Christian morality by making philosophical arguments that didn’t rely on Christian beliefs. In The Gay Science, Nietzsche writes (in German though):
ellauri100.html on line 435: Note that there is a great deal of controversy as to the exact meaning of what these reaction time associations actually mean, so please take your results with a grain of salt. While a great deal of previous research has validated the use of such procedures to detect associations of group level bias across groups, the use of IAT procedures to measure individual ethicality is still in development and all of these procedures have been validated probibalistically, at the group level, rather than being validated as being absolutely diagnostic for individuals. That being said, many (though not all) people have found validity in their implicit scores and have found there to be some real psychological process that tracks implicit associations.
ellauri172.html on line 260: Other writers [who?] have opted to deny the validity of the illustration. A typical [citation needed] counter-argument is that rationality as described in the paradox is so limited as to be a straw man version of the real thing. The idea that a random decision could be made is sometimes used as an attempted justification for faith. The argument is that, like the starving ass, we must make a choice to avoid being frozen in endless doubt. Other counter-arguments exist. [This paragraph was total balderdash, if I may say so.]
ellauri181.html on line 382: Additionally, ipsative measures may be useful in identifying faking. However, ipsative measures may, especially among testing-naïve individuals exhibiting high levels of conscientiousness and/or neuroticism, decrease test validity by discouraging response and/or encouraging non-response. For example, a test's authors may force respondents to choose between "a) Animals chase me in my dreams" and "b) My dreams are nice" in an effort to see whether a given respondent is more inclined toward "faking bad" or toward "faking good." When faced with such a question, a child frequently terrified by nightmares that rarely if ever involve animals, and especially one whose parents have foolishly taught him/her/it strict rules against lying, may simply refuse to answer the question given that for that respondent nearly all of the time both descriptions are inaccurate. Even a previously presented guideline "Choose the answer that [best/better] describes you" may be unhelpful in such a situation to responders who worry that endorsing one item or the other will still involve stating it to be accurate or "well"-descriptive to some positive degree. Only if the guideline is presented as "Choose the answer that more accurately or less inaccurately describes you" and the above-described responder is sophisticated enough to reason out his/her response in terms of "Despite the infrequency with which I have nice dreams, I have them [more frequently / less infrequently] than dreams in which animals chase me" (or, in theory, vice versa) will such a responder be willing to answer the question—and phrasing the guideline in this way bears its own cost of making the question reveal less about the respondent's propensities because the respondent is no longer forced to "fake" one way or another.[citation needed].
ellauri191.html on line 1746: "for an oeuvre of universal validity, bitter insights and linguistic ingenuity, which has opened new paths for the Chinese novel and drama"
ellauri206.html on line 71: In 2017, Vietnamese-American writer Viet Thanh Nguyen (n.h.) questioned the validity of continuing to teach "show, don't tell" in creative writing classes in a New York Times op-ed on the subject. His position was that such teaching is biased against immigrant writers, who may describe emotions in ways readers from outside their culture might not understand, rendering "tell" necessary. Like the squeaky smiley that shows just raised eyebrows and no smiling mouth. Because a smile does not count for anything out there. Everybody smiles all the time.
ellauri222.html on line 103: In the culture of little magazines, friendship is the last thing to prevent one writer from reviewing the work of another. As a novelist happy to have well-disposed reviewers, Bellow had an obvious stake in these friendships. But the friends had a stake in Bellow, too. As Mark Greif points out in his important new study of mid-century intellectual life, “The Age of the Crisis of Man,” Bellow came on the scene at a time when many people imagined the fate of modern man to be somehow tied to the fate of the novel. Was the novel dead or was it not? Much was thought to depend on the answer. And for people who worried about this Bellow was the great hope. Atlas quotes Norman Podhoretz: “There was a sense in which the validity of a whole phase of American experience was felt to hang on the question of whether or not he would turn out to be a great novelist.”
ellauri240.html on line 63: As her fame grew there was an increase in disapproval among psychologists and psychiatrists (an all-male panel) . They questioned both the validity of her psychological claims and her authority in providing psychological advice. A growing number of male psychologists began to believe the advice she provided to her audience was unethical insofar as she did not hold any clinical degree and she was giving advice for free, not to patients who were paying customers. Mr. Stevens and Mr. Gardener, the authors of “Women and Psychology,” stated that “traditional psychologists smile subtly when her name is mentioned and they often complain that she actually does more damage to the Brotherhood than good. Besides, her eyes are way too close together.“
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."
xxx/ellauri104.html on line 667: Critics of the RC scales assert they have deviated too far from the original clinical scales, the implication being that previous research done on the clinical scales will not be relevant to the interpretation of the RC scales. However, researchers on the RC scales assert that the RC scales predict pathology in their designated areas better than their concordant original clinical scales while using significantly fewer items and maintaining equal to higher internal consistency, reliability and validity; further, unlike the original clinical scales, the RC scales are not saturated with the primary factor (demoralization, now captured in RCdem) which frequently produced diffuse elevations and made interpretation of results difficult; finally, the RC scales have lower interscale correlations and, in contrast to the original clinical scales, contain no interscale item overlap.
xxx/ellauri123.html on line 579: Such rules have extended validity and therefore live right between normal guidelines and the base layer of principles. I guess we could call them ‘cardinal rules.’ As you can imagine, they’re hard to come by.
xxx/ellauri169.html on line 45: In principle, conspiracy theories are not always false by default and their validity depends on evidence just as in any theory. However, they are often discredited a priori due to the cumbersome and improbable nature of many of them.
xxx/ellauri186.html on line 801: Muslim apologists would then be making the claim that “Christians made a mistake by not seeing the text’s truthfulness and historical validity.” The problem with this objection is triune: a) the criteria for canonicity, b) the history of the books, and c) the theology of the gospel itself.
15