Generalities (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

NihilusZero -> Generalities (3/22/2011 2:20:12 PM)

Please note:

Your anecdotal evidence of an exception to any generality offered up in a discussion is not a nullification of that generality. You cannot "disagree" with an accurate generality by offering your own personal exception.

Example:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Premise: "Most americans marry within their ethnicity."

Retort: "I disagree with the above! My sister is white and is married to a black man."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This type of reply is not just fallacious in terms of addressing the accuracy of the original point, but also in terms of the need to apply personal projection (for whatever reason) to a statement that is correct. Whatever reasons you may have that give you the need to feel that you have to point out the exceptions to the generality are likely simply emotional bias you have towards the issue (and can surely be discussed separately from the original point, but do not constitute a correct rebuttal to the original generality).


Take care not to make this error in your future discussions. Thank you for your time.

You may now carry on.




domiguy -> RE: Generalities (3/22/2011 2:23:41 PM)

But what if I marry my sister?

Yeah buddy, that sure throws a wrench into the monkey works, doesn't it?



poise -> RE: Generalities (3/22/2011 2:27:18 PM)

Joyfully carries on.



mnottertail -> RE: Generalities (3/22/2011 2:28:15 PM)

The whale is undoubtably one of the largest mammals alive today.

(and you can quote me).

Ron



LadyPact -> RE: Generalities (3/22/2011 2:29:19 PM)

In general, I'm not much in favor of those who attempt to dictate to others how to post.

Enjoy your day.



NihilusZero -> RE: Generalities (3/22/2011 2:29:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

But what if I marry my sister?

Yeah buddy, that sure throws a wrench into the monkey works, doesn't it?

That is a toughie, for sure.

Now, if your parents were of different ethnicities (first whammy) and you and your sister each turned out to lean heavily towards one of those ethnicities, and they were different poles, then it could appear to be a second cross-ethincity (second whammy).

I'm not entirely sure if a double-whammy example can officially count as able to debunk a generality. It's possible.

I'll have my people look into it.



NihilusZero -> RE: Generalities (3/22/2011 2:31:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

In general, I'm not much in favor of those who attempt to dictate to others how to post.

Generalities that state anecdotal information aren't really generalities. [;)]



NihilusZero -> RE: Generalities (3/22/2011 2:32:21 PM)

Such as :

Generally, my replies are not written in fucshia
[8D]

(Actually, technically, while being information that is personally related, this is openly determinable information...so I'm kinda wrong here with my example. Unless I could go back and change 60% of all my posts ever to the color.)



LadyPact -> RE: Generalities (3/22/2011 2:35:29 PM)

Generally, most people have trouble quoting My font color, but you did a fine job there.

In general, men don't know the color fucshia.



NihilusZero -> RE: Generalities (3/22/2011 2:36:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

Generally, most people have trouble quoting My font color, but you did a fine job there.

In general, men don't know the color fucshia.


Generally, the CM quoting system doesn't apply a quoted text's color scheme to the reply.

*scratches head*

(Probably user error.)



NihilusZero -> RE: Generalities (3/22/2011 2:40:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact


In general, men don't know the color fucshia.


(It took me a second to realize...)

Fantastic example!!!

Now, if I was more concerned about feeling that perhaps my masculinity was being covertly threatened by a generality (I'm not sure if yours is accurate, but I'll bet most aren't familiar with how to spell it at least. It's possible you could be right.) I might reply:

"I obviously know the color fucshia! And I...wait... *checks pants*....yes! I am a "man"! You're wrong!"

And it would be an example of the error I have shown in the OP.

Now I actually am curious about how prevalent familiarity with the color fucshia is and whether it varies based on gender.

Something tells me there may not be a lot of studies on that available.

*sigh*



NocturnalStalker -> RE: Generalities (3/22/2011 3:02:38 PM)

NihilusZero owning it up.



FukinTroll -> RE: Generalities (3/22/2011 3:50:00 PM)

To me this particular issue I am contending with is more about the betterment of humanity, really. How can I, as a living, breathing, sentient creature turn blind eyes to the ongoing atrocities surrounding the issue? If I chose to ignore it wouldn’t that make me less than, no longer capable of considering myself a part of the collective? This surpasses race, religious conviction, nationality… it is incumbent upon each of us to pour all that we can spare into bettering this. We have so many great minds, great thinkers and thoughtful people, just right here on the boards, I am astonished no one has seen a clear path of resolution. Even standing behind some of our greatest thinkers, you would think, there was someone behind them just thinking up further solutions should they become unviable or diplomatic channels fail.

I feel that we should arrest this to the point of barbarism, unrelenting aggression the steadfast American way. How can we stand idly by while X is suffering from X when we have so many alternatives, solutions and protocols in place to radically affect the issue? It is just disturbing to me that while we sit her calm, comfy and secure, X is being brutalized because of Y and we do nothing about it. Did IQ’s take a sudden downward spiral into oblivion? Can you honestly sit there and feign indifference about this?

Conversely, would it be more like an act of futility… charging in to the rescue, wouldn’t we be enabling this? At some point one does have to learn to stand on their own feet, maybe we could hold a hand to steady them, but if history has taught us one thing, is that often the grasp is further than the reach. Do you think that making such huge personal, even national, sacrifices is the right thing to do? For example, look at the war on predators, think of how the Mule Deer suffered because of the “Right Choices”, the propping of the species led to an agonizing death. For me it is a conundrum of epic proportions: As a being, possessing feelings I should do something, however I could cripple the very thing I intend to save through action.

So what should it be? Action or inaction? I mean, the issue is never going to go away as we sway back and forth, act/do not act… it is mind-boggling. Oscar wild said “sarcasm is the lowest form of wit”, can we really sit on the sidelines and watch this spiral out of control as we make snide and sarcastic remarks? What many do not realize is that he also said, (which is the second half of the original) “but the highest form of intelligence.” So does that validate sarcasm? Is there a hidden message in his words? Perhaps the sarcastic approach is not the best way to deal with the issue, but if it is coming from the highest form of intelligence, wouldn’t that make the superior approach?
I must apologize for going so off topic in this post, but this has really been weighing on me.   Thoughts?



gungadin09 -> RE: Generalities (3/22/2011 5:20:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
Please note:

Your anecdotal evidence of an exception to any generality offered up in a discussion is not a nullification of that generality. You cannot "disagree" with an accurate generality by offering your own personal exception.


That comes across a little smug, OP, but i gotta say, i agree.

With the following qualification:
You *can* attempt to prove that a generalisation is inaccurate by naming exceptions. A single exception doesn't prove that something isn't *usually* true, but neither does one person's insistence that it's usually true, *prove* that it is.

pam



0ldhen -> RE: Generalities (3/22/2011 5:35:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FukinTroll

I feel that we should arrest this to the point of barbarism, unrelenting aggression the steadfast American way. How can we stand idly by while X is suffering from X when we have so many alternatives, solutions and protocols in place to radically affect the issue? It is just disturbing to me that while we sit her calm, comfy and secure, X is being brutalized because of Y and we do nothing about it. Did IQ’s take a sudden downward spiral into oblivion? Can you honestly sit there and feign indifference about this?

So what should it be? Action or inaction? I mean, the issue is never going to go away as we sway back and forth, act/do not act… it is mind-boggling. Oscar wild said “sarcasm is the lowest form of wit”, can we really sit on the sidelines and watch this spiral out of control as we make snide and sarcastic remarks? What many do not realize is that he also said, (which is the second half of the original) “but the highest form of intelligence.” So does that validate sarcasm? Is there a hidden message in his words? Perhaps the sarcastic approach is not the best way to deal with the issue, but if it is coming from the highest form of intelligence, wouldn’t that make the superior approach?


My dear Troll, Personally I refuse to simply sand upon the sidelines witnessing this horror. Bullshit I say! Yes, we as Americans have an intrinsic duty to stand up and shout loud and pround" Hell No" this type of crimanal endeavor needs to be annihilated, exterminated and obliterated with extreme prejudice. Enough is enough!

If we stand simply idly by and toss out sarcastic quips it will not, not I tell you, almeliorate, amend or elevate any individual or party involved in this situation. Those whose agenda it is blemish, corrupt or debase our wonderful partisan stand on this issue must be aware of the exact nature of the beast we are discussing.

Ladies and gentlemen of the forums, what say you?



stellauk -> RE: Generalities (3/22/2011 9:09:43 PM)

Many arguments on 'people' topics rarely if ever stand up to deductive reasoning for it only appears so from the perspective of one person.

However the premise in the OP is one which is consistent simply because it is so general that it cannot be disputed. But that is because it is a concrete truth.

This is because it stands up to examination through a rhetorical device as a syllogism.

Principle: Most people living in the United States are Americans.
Application: Inter-racial marriages among Americans are rare.
Conclusion: Most Americans marry within their ethnicity.

But this is not always the case, as we can see here..

Principle: Rabbits eat carrots.
Application: Stella eats carrots.
Conclusion: Stella is a rabbit.

A ridiculous example of course, but one which illustrates how arguing from generalities can also be fallacious.

That saying the retort isn't fallacious at all, but simply points out the universal truth that when arguing in terms of generalities there are always going to be exceptions. Pointing out an exception neither negates the general statement nor is it fallacious, for it is a statement drawn from a specific example and inductive reasoning.

Dismissing this rebuttal drawn from inductive reasoning as merely something emotional, an appeal to pathos as it were, is in itself fallacious. All arguments, whether they are presented in generalities (deductive reasoning) or specific examples (inductive reasoning) involve personal projection for they are opinions presented from the perspective of the poster. It does not matter whether it is the objective presentation of fact (i.e. drawn from personal experience) or the subjective presentation of an opinion, it still involves logic and reasoning, and is still a valid argument.

I could make a similar argument to the one in the OP and state that 'most trees have branches and twigs' based on what I believe to be a concrete truth which everyone can agree with. But someone can pipe up 'what about palm trees?', and indeed, palm trees generally do not have branches or twigs and they are trees. Both statements are true, and neither negates the other.

The same can be said in the example given in the OP.



NihilusZero -> RE: Generalities (3/22/2011 9:46:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stellauk

Dismissing this rebuttal drawn from inductive reasoning as merely something emotional, an appeal to pathos as it were, is in itself fallacious.

It's not being dismissed because it cannot be correct. It's being dismissed because it is not logical. Generalities, when spoken, are specifically discussing an expansive breadth of examples that encompasses an extremely wide populace. Personal experience goes out the window at that point (even in instances where the individual has many personal experiences to go on because, even then, the sample size is far too small. Unless we're talking about sex with women and you're Wilt Chamberlain, perhaps).

quote:

ORIGINAL: stellauk

All arguments, whether they are presented in generalities (deductive reasoning) or specific examples (inductive reasoning) involve personal projection for they are opinions presented from the perspective of the poster.

Not at all. Or, if that is typically the case, it shouldn't be (if we are holding to any moderate intellectual standard). My premise, for instance, was not based on mere personal observation, but on factual, objective information. This, of course, is assuming that people take the time to verify their generalities before they speak them.

But even if the generalities are not correct, personal information is not the way to address that point because that reasoning itself is completely flawed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stellauk

It does not matter whether it is the objective presentation of fact (i.e. drawn from personal experience) or the subjective presentation of an opinion, it still involves logic and reasoning, and is still a valid argument

Examples wrought "from personal experience" are not objective at all, however. They are neither logical or valid, except by sheer accident (although statistically, it could be said that popular opinion on topics has a greater potential to be based on fact than folly...but then you have things like the 10% myth. An 'argumentum ad populum' is a logical fallacy for a reason).



FirmhandKY -> RE: Generalities (3/22/2011 10:45:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

Generally, most people have trouble quoting My font color, but you did a fine job there.

In general, men don't know the color fucshia.



Generally, I see purple.

Firm



stellauk -> RE: Generalities (3/22/2011 10:51:48 PM)

Okay, I'm keeping an open mind here..

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

It's not being dismissed because it cannot be correct. It's being dismissed because it is not logical. Generalities, when spoken, are specifically discussing an expansive breadth of examples that encompasses an extremely wide populace. Personal experience goes out the window at that point (even in instances where the individual has many personal experiences to go on because, even then, the sample size is far too small. Unless we're talking about sex with women and you're Wilt Chamberlain, perhaps).



Okay, so I am with you on the rebuttal not being logical. I'm just having a problem with the rest, assuming that the basis of what we are discussing here is that initial premise in the OP.

The problem I have is that it appears to me that what you are saying is that the personal experience of the many - for marriage is a concrete event which is experienced, it's black and white, you are either married or you're not - is acceptable, but the individual personal experience of one person is not. The original premise is a principle deducted from many numerous personal experiences, is it not?

What's the difference? Quantity alone?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: stellauk

All arguments, whether they are presented in generalities (deductive reasoning) or specific examples (inductive reasoning) involve personal projection for they are opinions presented from the perspective of the poster.

Not at all. Or, if that is typically the case, it shouldn't be (if we are holding to any moderate intellectual standard). My premise, for instance, was not based on mere personal observation, but on factual, objective information. This, of course, is assuming that people take the time to verify their generalities before they speak them.

But even if the generalities are not correct, personal information is not the way to address that point because that reasoning itself is completely flawed.



Yes, but that factual, objective information is based on a principle gathered from many different instances of the same personal experience, i.e. getting married. To me it doesn't matter if it is just one couple getting married or five million couples getting married, the fundamental experience is the same, i.e. getting married. Marriage involves the signing of some sort of licence and recording into public records. Therefore the information presented is indeed factual. But it is not possible for those statistics to exist without people going through the experience of marriage, correct?

I'm struggling to understand here why you don't perceive the personal experience of someone as valid when it is the same experience which generated those statistics on which you base your original premise.

Also if you are personally involved in an experience, i.e. a wedding, it is not the same as an observation, even if you are one of the guests. It is an entirely different perspective from that of say, a passer by who witnesses the ceremony from across the street. The passer by is not involved in the ceremony, and therefore it is a case of personal observation. But to be one of the parties getting married or a guest requires involvement and in my opinion presenting that information as personal experience is entirely valid.

That saying I do agree with you that it is important to verify your generalities and to examine the logic and reasoning behind them before presenting them but the thinking involved in this process is entirely individual, based on individual perception and knowledge.

On any given subject there is usually more than one argument and it is the process of finding that argument and being able to construct it in ethical and logical terms which makes it an intellectual discussion, not the acquisition of the knowledge itself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: stellauk

It does not matter whether it is the objective presentation of fact (i.e. drawn from personal experience) or the subjective presentation of an opinion, it still involves logic and reasoning, and is still a valid argument

Examples wrought "from personal experience" are not objective at all, however. They are neither logical or valid, except by sheer accident (although statistically, it could be said that popular opinion on topics has a greater potential to be based on fact than folly...but then you have things like the 10% myth. An 'argumentum ad populum' is a logical fallacy for a reason).


Now here, assuming the basis of what we are discussing is that original generality of marriage, is where you have lost me.

How can the experience of getting married be seen as subjective? Is a marriage not a contract between two people who wish to gain official recognition for their relationship?

I still say dismissing the individual personal experience in favour of the same experience compiled collectively to generate the same factual statistics on which you base your premise is the fallacy. But then on the other hand it also illustrates the validity of drawing on personal experience as a basis for logical reasoning.

BTW, unconnected, you take brilliant photographs.



SpiritedRadiance -> RE: Generalities (3/22/2011 10:58:08 PM)

However If several people are posting from personal experience saying your wrong. It means that by god golly you can be wrong...because they are offering that your opinion is wrong and they have proof of it.

Generalizations by themselves are wrong because they do not fit the majority they are simply opinions.. Its only assumed that they do. To generalize is to form an opinion, that is based on personal experience from the person generalizing...

Meaning that opinion is only by that person wither 10 people or 50 thousand people agree with that generalization its still only an opinion... Not a fact.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875