Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-17-2019 10:34 PM
29 online now:
anglagard, DrJones*, jar, marc9000 (4 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Happy Birthday: lopezeast0211
Post Volume:
Total: 856,898 Year: 11,934/19,786 Month: 1,715/2,641 Week: 224/708 Day: 51/40 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2829303132
33
Author Topic:   Quick Questions, Short Answers - No Debate
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1677
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 481 of 495 (847634)
01-24-2019 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 480 by ringo
01-24-2019 11:18 AM


Re: Please name this fallacy
A classic example is, "We prayed for rain and it rained, so prayer works."

That's a classically named fallacy - post hoc ergo propter hoc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 480 by ringo, posted 01-24-2019 11:18 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 494 by mike the wiz, posted 07-11-2019 9:50 AM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18587
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 482 of 495 (847646)
01-24-2019 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 473 by Lammy
01-24-2019 12:06 AM


Re: Please name this fallacy
Lammy writes:

I'm a bridge structural engineer. A lot of my job is to make sure nothing happens to the nation's bridges. I know a lot of people think my profession doesn't deserve to exist because they don't see bridges collapsing everywhere. But that's the point of my job!

I'm surprised to hear that many people don't think we need bridge structural engineers. We need more, not less, for both design and inspection. This link lists a bunch of bridge failures from all over the world.

We used to travel the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) quite a bit, even though we found the roadway a bit rough, but when the Mianus River Bridge collapsed in 1983 we stopped using it and haven't been on it since.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by Lammy, posted 01-24-2019 12:06 AM Lammy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 484 by dwise1, posted 07-08-2019 3:56 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 492 by Theodoric, posted 07-08-2019 2:34 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3551
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 483 of 495 (857365)
07-08-2019 3:45 AM


Brits: "Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, ... "
This is a question specific to British culture/popular culture from decades ago.

We all know the Monty Python routine from the early 70's of ""Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more, know what I mean, know what I mean?" In case you need a reminder, here is one version on Youtube:

One of the offerings on Netflix is a British spy miniseries, Traitors, in which a young British woman is recruited by a rogue US intelligence agent at the end of WWII to ferret out communist infiltrators in the British government. Just as a reminder, these events are supposed to be immediately after WWII, in the second half of the 1940's.

The scene in question is where the US agent makes a statement to the effect of, "Or as you Brits say, 'Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.'." Again, I remind you that that scene is supposed to have taken place in 1945 or 1946 or 1947.

My question, directed mainly at our British members, is how far back does that expression go? Americans simply assume that Monty Python had come up with it entirely on their own, but there's also the possibility that they had themselves simply borrowed from a pre-existing expression in a British parallel universe not shared by Americans.

A friend, a fellow USAF veteran who had been stationed in the UK, has stated that it does indeed pre-date Monty Python, but not as far back as the late 1940's. What do you all say?


Replies to this message:
 Message 485 by vimesey, posted 07-08-2019 5:38 AM dwise1 has responded
 Message 486 by caffeine, posted 07-08-2019 9:18 AM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 487 by ringo, posted 07-08-2019 12:23 PM dwise1 has responded
 Message 490 by PaulK, posted 07-08-2019 1:16 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3551
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 484 of 495 (857366)
07-08-2019 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 482 by Percy
01-24-2019 4:41 PM


Re: Please name this fallacy
I'm surprised to hear that many people don't think we need bridge structural engineers. We need more, not less, for both design and inspection.

A few years ago on Wikipedia, I read about then-Major Eisenhower's 1919 cross-country military convoy. I can no longer find a link to that, but this is what's on his page at https://en.wikipedia.org/...isenhower#In_service_of_generals:

quote:
After the war, Eisenhower reverted to his regular rank of captain and a few days later was promoted to major, a rank he held for 16 years. The major was assigned in 1919 to a transcontinental Army convoy to test vehicles and dramatize the need for improved roads in the nation. Indeed, the convoy averaged only 5 mph from Washington, D.C., to San Francisco; later the improvement of highways became a signature issue for Eisenhower as President.

From my memory of that previous article that I can no longer find, several times the convoy's progress was impeded by structurally unsound bridges that they had to rebuild before they could cross. And indeed, the creation of our interstate highway system was a signature issue for the Eisenhower administration. A system that is falling into disrepair.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 482 by Percy, posted 01-24-2019 4:41 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
vimesey
Member
Posts: 967
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 485 of 495 (857370)
07-08-2019 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 483 by dwise1
07-08-2019 3:45 AM


Re: Brits: "Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, ... "
I'm not sure how extensively used it was as an expression before Idle used it in the sketch - my guess, though, is that it (or similar combinations) were in circulation as some of the myriad of humourous idioms and puns which pepper our social interactions over here. (In that regard, by the way, if you can tolerate a lot of swearing and extreme language, I'd recommend having a dip into Roger's Profanisaurus - it's a book available on Amazon listing English idioms which are (to use a very broad term) rude, but there are lots of free extracts from it online. Brits use these sorts of expressions a fair bit - and the book lists thousands of them).

What the Python sketch did do is to catapult the expression into the country's workplaces and playgrounds the next day and fixed it firmly in the consciousness of a couple of generations here.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by dwise1, posted 07-08-2019 3:45 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 491 by dwise1, posted 07-08-2019 1:22 PM vimesey has not yet responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1677
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 486 of 495 (857382)
07-08-2019 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 483 by dwise1
07-08-2019 3:45 AM


Re: Brits: "Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, ... "
I've never thought of it as a Python specific phrase, but I am younger than the series so not really qualified to judge.

Google ngrams is interesting. Neither of the phrases 'nudge nudge wink wink' nor 'wink wink nudge nudge' appear in their corpus. However, 'wink wink' and 'nudge nudge' both do. 'Nudge nudge' appears rarely in the 50s and 60s; then takes of exponentially in the early 70s, which implies a big influence from Python.

'Wink wink' was more common; popping up sporadically in the 19th and early 20th centuries; having a huge surge in popularity in the late 30s/early 40s which for some reason died out at the end of the war; then taking off exponentially at the same as 'nudge nudge'.

Note that many of the cases found prior to Monty Python are in the American corpus; so I don't think this is necessarily a distinctive Britishism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by dwise1, posted 07-08-2019 3:45 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16817
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 487 of 495 (857425)
07-08-2019 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 483 by dwise1
07-08-2019 3:45 AM


Re: Brits: "Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, ... "
When in doubt, Shakespeare wrote it down first - and he probably heard it in the streets.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by dwise1, posted 07-08-2019 3:45 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 488 by dwise1, posted 07-08-2019 12:48 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3551
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 488 of 495 (857431)
07-08-2019 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 487 by ringo
07-08-2019 12:23 PM


Re: Brits: "Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, ... "
When in doubt, Shakespeare wrote it down first - and he probably heard it in the streets.

But then we'd have to refer back to the original German: «Anstoßen, anstoßen, zwinkern, zwinkern, ... »

I won't even begin to attempt the original Klingon ("?, ?, vIIojmoHDI', vIIojmoHDI' ... ", but not properly conjugated).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 487 by ringo, posted 07-08-2019 12:23 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6950
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 489 of 495 (857433)
07-08-2019 1:11 PM


'Nudge nudge, wink wink' was pre-Python - can't say how much.

'Say no more' was also pre-Python as a separate phrase, the Pythons put the two phrases together.

But you'd have to be pretty old to actually know.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15204
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 490 of 495 (857434)
07-08-2019 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 483 by dwise1
07-08-2019 3:45 AM


Re: Brits: "Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, ... "
Nudging and winking in that sense are probably quite old. Saying - or writing - the words instead of performing the actions may be quite old, too. It might have been done in a cartoon or a music hall performance. So I don’t have any difficulty in imagining that it predated Python. But I have no idea when it started.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by dwise1, posted 07-08-2019 3:45 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3551
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 491 of 495 (857436)
07-08-2019 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 485 by vimesey
07-08-2019 5:38 AM


Re: Brits: "Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, ... "
Totally agree about Monty Python's role. That sketch and the miniseries I just cited are the only references I've encountered.

I will look into that Roger's Profanisaurus.

ADDENDUM:
I'd like to thank everybody who has responded.

Edited by dwise1, : addendum to all


This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by vimesey, posted 07-08-2019 5:38 AM vimesey has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6393
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 492 of 495 (857450)
07-08-2019 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 482 by Percy
01-24-2019 4:41 PM


Re: Please name this fallacy
A major interstate bridge collapsed near here in MN 12 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge
One of the two bridges between Superior, WI and Duluth, MN is closely reaching it's life end. It is now restricted to traffic under 40 ton and be worked on continuously. The states plan on replacing it by 2028. People around here are not confident it will last that long.
https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/...ficially-scheduled-2028

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 482 by Percy, posted 01-24-2019 4:41 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


(1)
Message 493 of 495 (857767)
07-11-2019 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 468 by Lammy
01-23-2019 4:49 PM


Re: Please name this fallacy
Lammy writes:

Cardiologist tells patient he needs an immediate procedure done or in the next few months he will very likely have a heart attack. The procedure gets done. 2 years later, the patient exclaims "hey, I haven't had a heart attack at all. That procedure was a waste!"

What fallacy did the government and the patient commit? I'm sure there is a formal name for this flawed logic

Hi Lammy, I don't know if people have given an answer to this. Everyone is committing a fallacy in your examples.

But of course, that's not always that important. The engineer and cardiologist are technically committing an appeal to consequences fallacy. But it's forgivable as they aren't talking out of their butts, they are basing their surmise on real facts, and probability, so there is a strong possibility that negative outcome P may occur if the other people don't follow their advice.

With the government and the patient, they IMPLY a false conditional implication, and any false conditional implication is basically a non-sequitur.

EXAMPLE;

If I don't stop eating all this sugar I'm going to get diabetes real soon.

This doesn't follow, even if it's true, because there is the possibility the outcome will not be diabetes.

So to say, "had I not had these flu shots I likely wouldn't have gotten the flu" is unknowable, as there are two possibilities, that you may or may not.

Conclusion: There aren't always names for formal fallacies, but they can still be called non-sequiturs, so you still can say to someone you think has made one of these mistakes, "no that doesn't logically follow because for all you know had the repairs not taken place the bridge would have collapsed."

The important thing isn't the name of the fallacy, but that there is a fallacy. An argument can be fallacious without having a name IMHO.

That's my opinion anyway.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by Lammy, posted 01-23-2019 4:49 PM Lammy has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


(1)
Message 494 of 495 (857772)
07-11-2019 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 481 by caffeine
01-24-2019 2:09 PM


Re: Please name this fallacy
caffeine writes:

That's a classically named fallacy - post hoc ergo propter hoc.

With post-hoc reasoning the fallacy occurs if the only reason to infer X was the cause, was because then afterward the outcome occurred.So because it happened BEFORE the outcome.

Example: "I prayed for the sun to rise and then it did." (the examples have to be simple to match the atheist's simple understanding of prayer, because obviously atheists only have a concept of prayer which will be superficiality.)

As a Christian I have prayed for rain to go away when I am on my bicycle but not in a very serious manner, just a sort of conversational nonsense. It has went away many times, it also hasn't went away many times. To only count the times it went away would be confirmation-bias.

Despite atheist propaganda, I never once genuinely believed that when the rain went away it was God's hand. I think that is a very vague, insignificant example that wouldn't have much meaning to a believing Christian. Notice they never give impressive examples such as, "I had inoperative cancer they said I would certainly die then I lived and was healed." (Dodi Osteen for example)

The fallacy doesn't occur if you pray for something and that thing happens, if there are more reasons to infer the prayer was answered than merely that the prayer preceded it. So even if technically we can't conclude God answered a prayer, that doesn't give any reason to believe He didn't answer a prayer if something major is happening to you and God answers.

For example if a prayer is answered which goes beyond what chance would allow, there is reason to accept that it is a strong possibility that it was answered. Yes, coincidence is also a possibility, but there has to be a limit to what chance can allow, mathematically. For example, if you win the lottery jackpot 32 consecutive weeks in a row and you asked before it to win it 32 consecutive times, would you be saying it would be post-hoc reasoning?

Then what would count as God answering?

And that is the problem, the atheist uses things like post-hoc reasoning as a BLANKET, to cover all prayer, but this is unreasonable and they do it because of their atheist prejudice. The fact is in real life intelligent people can tell if a prayer was truly answered or not.

Also there are things which happen to us spiritually which we did not pray for, which can be remarkable occurrences. There is no reason to believe God was not involved.

CONCLUSION: I think atheists can use things like confirmation bias and post hoc reasoning just as technicalities. It's a way of broadly concluding all prayer is unanswered, as a sort of sweeping generalisation, where in actuality they themselves don't know that it was not answered. Also, an atheist would probably only count an answered prayer as something truly unrealistically silly like getting God to appear in a lab and only make the selected balls do a conga on video with 50 of the world's best scientists making sure the lab is sealed from all possible interference.

Lol.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by caffeine, posted 01-24-2019 2:09 PM caffeine has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 495 by Tangle, posted 07-11-2019 10:59 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6950
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 495 of 495 (857784)
07-11-2019 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 494 by mike the wiz
07-11-2019 9:50 AM


Re: Please name this fallacy
MtW writes:

CONCLUSION: I think atheists can use things like confirmation bias and post hoc reasoning just as technicalities. It's a way of broadly concluding all prayer is unanswered, as a sort of sweeping generalisation, where in actuality they themselves don't know that it was not answered. Also, an atheist would probably only count an answered prayer as something truly unrealistically silly like getting God to appear in a lab and only make the selected balls do a conga on video with 50 of the world's best scientists making sure the lab is sealed from all possible interference.

Lol.

There have been real, science based studies that show that prayer does not work. At best it's inconclusive and subjective. But if you have actual evidence that it does, let's see it.

Lol.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/...essory_prayer#The_STEP_project


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by mike the wiz, posted 07-11-2019 9:50 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2829303132
33
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019