Rookie,
That's an interesting opinion. Let's distinguish the particles of that opinion.
Cynicism= (attitude>=not attitude)
Skepticism = (=or (not=) health)
Therefore,
Skeptical times Landmark = good.
Cynicism times anything = (nil +or- small amount of X).
I think you're confused about logic.
I get confused about it too.
I'm not an expert on the subject of logic, but every time I read your post I'm trying to figure out what you are attempting to communicate. Your statements and conclusions do not match and your use of language is misleading.:confused::confused:
I'm trying to ascertain why you would attempt to correct GC4062 on his understanding and usage of the term cynicism. His use is completely accurate in normal english. In Landmarkese, it would be a faux pas.
Do you speak Landmarkese?
Here are a collection of logical fallacies that I find useful to understand.
Go and check out the site I've provided below; I think you'll enjoy the distinctions.:)
[b:2534e5affe]Prejudicial Language[/b:2534e5affe]
Definition:
Loaded or emotive terms are used to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition.
Examples:
(i) Right thinking Canadians will agree with me that we should have another free vote on capital punishment.
(ii) A reasonable person would agree that our income statement is too low.
(iii) Senator Turner claims that the new tax rate will reduce the deficit. (Here, the use of "claims" implies that what Turner says is false.)
(iv) The proposal is likely to be resisted by the bureaucrats on Parliament Hill. (Compare this to: The proposal is likely to be rejected by officials on Parliament Hill.)
Proof:
Identify the prejudicial terms used (eg. "Right thinking Canadians" or "A reasonable person"). Show that disagreeing with the conclusion does not make a person "wrong thinking" or "unreasonable".
[b:2534e5affe]False Analogy[/b:2534e5affe]
Definition:
In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.
Examples:
(i) Employees are like nails. Just as nails must be hit in the head in order to make them work, so must employees.
(ii) Government is like business, so just as business must be sensitive primarily to the bottom line, so also must government. (But the objectives of government and business are completely different, so probably they will have to meet different criteria.)
Proof:
Identify the two objects or events being compared and the property which both are said to possess. Show that the two objects are different in a way which will affect whether they both have that property.
[b:2534e5affe]Begging the Question[/b:2534e5affe]
( petitio principii )
Definition:
The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises.
Often, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a slightly different form. In more difficult cases, the premise is a consequence of the conclusion.
Examples:
(i) Since I'm not lying, it follows that I'm telling the truth.
(ii) We know that God exists, since the Bible says God exists.
What the Bible says must be true, since God wrote it and God never lies. (Here, we must agree that God exists in order to believe that God wrote the Bible.)
Proof:
Show that in order to believe that the premises are true we must already agree that the conclusion is true.
[b:2534e5affe]Affirming the Consequent[/b:2534e5affe]
Definition:
Any argument of the following form is invalid:
If A then B
B Therefore, A
Examples:
(i) If I am in Calgary, then I am in Alberta. I am in Alberta, thus, I am in Calgary. (Of course, even though the premises are true, I might be in Edmonton, Alberta.)
(ii) If the mill were polluting the river then we would see an increase in fish deaths. And fish deaths have increased. Thus, the mill is polluting the river.
Proof:
Show that even though the premises are true, the conclusion could be false. In general, show that B might be a consequence of something other than A. For example, the fish deaths might be caused by pesticide run-off, and not the mill.
[b:2534e5affe]Denying the Antecedent[/b:2534e5affe]
Definition:
Any argument of the following form is invalid:
If A then B
Not A
Therefore, Not B
Examples:
(i) If you get hit by a car when you are six then you will die young. But you were not hit by a car when you were six. Thus you will not die young. (Of course, you could be hit by a train at age seven, in which case you still die young.)
(ii) If I am in Calgary then I am in Alberta. I am not in Calgary, thus, I am not in Alberta.
Proof:
Show that even though the premises are true, the conclusion may be false. In particular, show that the consequence B may occur even though A does not occur.
[b:2534e5affe]Existential Fallacy[/b:2534e5affe]
Definition:
A standard form categorical syllogism with two universalpremises has a particular conclusion.
The idea is thatsome universal properties need not be instantiated. Itmay be true that 'all trespassers will be shot' even if there are no trespassers. It may be true that 'all brakeless trains are dangerous' even though there are no brakelesstrains. That is the point of this fallacy.
Examples:
(i) All mice are animals, and all animals are dangerous, so some mice are dangerous.
(ii) No honest people steal, and all honest people pay taxes, so some honest people pay taxes.
Proof:
Assume that the premises are true, but that there are no instances of the category described. For example, in (i) above, assume there are no mice, and in (ii) above, assume there are no honest people. This shows that the conclusion is false.
These are alll found at this site: [
www.datanation.com]
:D
Guy
Quote
Rookie
GC--
I think you are confused between cynicism and skepticism. There is a distinction.
Cynicism is more of an attitude. Skepticism can be very healthy.
Being skeptical about Landmark is good. Cynicism doesn't accomplish much.