Monday, September 28, 2009
The Clarity of a Distant Eye
The Pepean President is a nightmare for all but Pepeans.... It is a shame this is understood much more swiftly by those on the banks of the Ganges than on the Hudson or Potomac.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
There has been a remarkable absence of clarity on Mr Obama’s strategic goals. In the early months, it was easy to pretend he was making up his mind. Now, it would seem he has no mind.
Ouchh! But, but, says Tecs (according to Mr Rot), Barry went to Harvard. And only the best and the brightest go to Harvard. (Of course, Pepean logic would interpret this last statement as meaning, if you don't go to Harvard, you're an idiot). Don't we have a valid syllogism here?
A variation on the theme: Feynman went to MIT and Princeton. Neither is Harvard. Hence, Feynman was not the best, nor the brightest.
So where is the fallacy?
Case 1: "Those who Went to Harvard Were the Best and the Brightest
Feynman did not go to Harvard.
Ergo Feynman was not one of the Best and the Brightest."
The form, as an Aristotelian syllogism, is not valid as it just says that going to H implies being B&B. It does not imply that being B&B means you went to H. For Aristotle, that the major premiss is empirically false, [Ted Kennedy went to Harvard. He was not the Brightest. Ted Kaczynski went to Harvard. He was not the Best], would then make the conclusion untrue even if the form had no error.
Case2: "All the Best and Brightest went to Harvard.
Feynman did not go to Harvard.
Ergo Feynman was not one of the Best and the Brightest."
The form is valid. It is still victim to one of the Empirical Fallacies. The fallacy, alas known to too few, as "The Swindle of Versaillean Presumption". It is a sick bleu variant on "begging the principle", wherein royal dicks plow their own arses.
Post a Comment