Routine to display Information about input file
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: Readibility of code was Re: Functional Programming book review
Next: (Usual) request to change subject - for "thread drift"
From: Michael Wojcik on 30 Jun 2010 10:27 Howard Brazee wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:15:29 -0400, Michael Wojcik > <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> wrote: > >>> When we start off with a premise >>> that we accept as Truth, bending the facts to fit this premise is >>> common, even with people who try hard not to do this. >> Sure. This does not make racisms or other group prejudices inherently >> irrational, however. "Irrational" (used carefully) has a specific >> meaning, and is not the litmus test for bad thinking or poor >> intellectual work. > > Is bending the facts to fit a premise rational then? Probably not, though "bending the facts" is not well-defined, so it's hard to say that there are no corner cases that could not reasonably be described as both "bending the facts" and "rational". But that's irrelevant. You didn't claim that racisms or group prejudices inherently involve "bending the facts"; you said it was common, not universal or necessary. So fact-bending, however common in practices, does not confer an essential irrationality on a class of ideologies. -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University
From: Michael Wojcik on 30 Jun 2010 11:33 Alistair Maclean wrote: > On Jun 26, 5:57 pm, SkippyPB <swieg...(a)Nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote: >> Illogical is defined as: >> >> 1. characterized by lack of logic; senseless or unreasonable >> 2. disregarding logical principles >> >> It is not logical to think or assume one race is superior to another. >> Hence racism is also illogical. > > There are aspects of race which make one race superior to another in > specific circumstances. Regardless of the truth or falsity of this statement, it has no bearing on the question of whether racism is logical. Logic does not determine the truth or falsehood of a premise. It might be lovely if we lived in a fairy-tale world where logic or reason determined correctness or truth. Certainly it would be much easier to create coherent, persuasive arguments against systematized injustices like racisms. But we do not, and it is not. Instead, we find that platitudes and knee-jerk reactions have little effect in combating injustice, and we have to do real work (intellectual and material) if we want to make a significant contribution toward justice. Logic and reason are epistemological modes. They provide criteria for determining whether a set of conclusions was produced in a well-formed manner from premises and observations. They don't distinguish right from wrong. -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University
From: Michael Wojcik on 30 Jun 2010 11:28 SkippyPB wrote: > > Nice try. You can play around with all those words all you like but > it doesn't make it right. I'm not sure what the antecedent of "it" is supposed to be there, but I'm pretty sure you still don't know what the hell you're talking about. I haven't been "play[ing] around with all those words". I've been demonstrating reason and logic, which are specific epistemological modes, not shorthand for "thinking SkippyPB approves of". And arranging words is how we express arguments, here in Adult Discourse Land. > The definition of irrational is: "The" definition? Your argument becomes moot right there. There's no authority to supply a single definition for any word in the English language. > a. Not endowed with reason. > b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as > from shock. > c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment > > All of those things describe racism which itself is defined as: You misspelled "None of those things". > a belief that human races have distinctive characteristics that > determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that > one's race is superior and has the right to control others. That's "endowed with reason": specifically, the conclusions (distinctive characteristics -> cultural determination, distinctive characteristics -> superiority, and superiority) follow from the premises, under a small set of fixed, consistent axioms. It's coherent. And it doesn't "lack ... accord with reason"; it's reasonable, along the same lines as, say, the belief that society as a whole has the right to limit the freedoms of individuals, because society as a whole has a superior capacity for the just exercise of power. Whether it lacks accord with "sound judgment" is subjective and tautological; the definition you've chosen is defective, or at best only informal, at that point, so you can't productively argue what it includes or excludes from that clause. > Any one endowed with reason and of clear mental coherency and with > sound judgment could never come to the conclusion that one race is > superior to another unless they were taught otherwise, brainwashed > really. Hence, racism is an irrational belief. Keep dreaming. > Illogical is defined as: > > 1. characterized by lack of logic; senseless or unreasonable > 2. disregarding logical principles > > It is not logical to think or assume one race is superior to another. Wow. You can quote the definition, but apparently you can't understand it. "Logic" does not mean "what SkippyPB thinks is correct". > And finally in your admittedly trivial attempt at a logical example, > your first premise, i.e., all people of heritage X are inferior, is a > false premise and therefore is not logical in itself. The attribute "logical" does not apply to premises, false or otherwise. Clearly you don't know what the word means. Logic is a collection of systems for deriving conclusions from premises. It doesn't apply to claims of fact; it applies to systems of derivation that operate on claims of fact. -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University
From: Pete Dashwood on 30 Jun 2010 20:34 Michael Wojcik wrote: > Alistair Maclean wrote: >> On Jun 26, 5:57 pm, SkippyPB <swieg...(a)Nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote: >>> Illogical is defined as: >>> >>> 1. characterized by lack of logic; senseless or unreasonable >>> 2. disregarding logical principles >>> >>> It is not logical to think or assume one race is superior to >>> another. Hence racism is also illogical. >> >> There are aspects of race which make one race superior to another in >> specific circumstances. > > Regardless of the truth or falsity of this statement, it has no > bearing on the question of whether racism is logical. Logic does not > determine the truth or falsehood of a premise. > > It might be lovely if we lived in a fairy-tale world where logic or > reason determined correctness or truth. Certainly it would be much > easier to create coherent, persuasive arguments against systematized > injustices like racisms. But we do not, and it is not. Instead, we > find that platitudes and knee-jerk reactions have little effect in > combating injustice, and we have to do real work (intellectual and > material) if we want to make a significant contribution toward > justice. > > Logic and reason are epistemological modes. They provide criteria for > determining whether a set of conclusions was produced in a well-formed > manner from premises and observations. They don't distinguish right > from wrong. This is an elegant piece of writing, Michael. I enjoyed it very much. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Anonymous on 1 Jul 2010 08:14
In article <i0fpc122phl(a)news3.newsguy.com>, Michael Wojcik <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> wrote: [snip] >Logic and reason are epistemological modes. 'Logic is a game, played by a particular set of rules.' - L Wittgenstein DD |