If the first person from Myanmar you ever encounter happens to rob you at gunpoint, should you think all Myanmar-ites (?) are dangerous?If, for example, I get bitten by a dog, isn't it a good idea to think from then on that all dogs are dangerous? To err on the side of caution, to be on the safe side, would necessitate that I immediately, after the dog bite, treat all dogs as threats, oui? — Agent Smith
If the first person from Myanmar you ever encounter happens to rob you at gunpoint, should you think all Myanmar-ites (?) are dangerous?
It's a hasty generalization for dogs and Myanmar-ites. But you don't have to judge either group to still behave prudently when you encounter another.
In general, your questions are very good. I'll need to think about them some more. — Relativist
Question: Can all other fallacies be recommended as a rational course of action based on Algos/Thanatos? — Agent Smith
If, for example, I get bitten by a dog, isn't it a good idea to think from then on that all dogs are dangerous? To err on the side of caution, to be on the safe side, would necessitate that I immediately, after the dog bite, treat all dogs as threats, oui? — Agent Smith
Schopenhauer thought something like that when he first wrote his Art of Being Right. — baker
Of course. But the next step (the one you're missing) is that one would be prudent to learn to distinguish a dangerous dog from one that isn't, and to recognize what leads to getting bitten and what doesn't — baker
Note however, there must be a psychological term for this, negative experiences are more susceptible to hasty generalizations than positive ones — Agent Smith
Yes, it's called a sense of entitlement.
After getting bitten, people don't confuse a rope for a snake. It's that before they got bitten for the first time, they confused a dangerous snake for a harmless rope, acting in the belief that the world should be a safe place for them. — baker
between dying like a dog and living like a king. — Agent Smith
That's a scriptural generality: "Anyone who is among the living has hope —even a live dog is better off than a dead lion!" Ecclesiastes 9:4
Are "glittering generalities" a) better than b) worse than c) about the same as sweeping generalities? — Bitter Crank
too obscure. — Bitter Crank
That said, legends speak of sages who had mastered the art of statistics to the point of clairvoyance! — Agent Smith
Name 3 examples of such sages.
— baker
Do your own homework! — Agent Smith
in what sense, circumstance, etc. is it good/safe/sensible to commit this "fallacy"? — Agent Smith
This is how a lot of animals behave. If they are harmed by something and can remember it, they would normally always avoid it. More intelligent animals, might need more harmful incidents --in fact some training-- in order to avoid something. A classic example Pavlov's experiment with dogs. The bad thing with that man was that he extended his findings to human being and he was in part responsible for such horrible psychiatric despicable techniques, such electroshocks (ECT). Because, indeed, the human mind too disposes of such defensive mechanism. However, the human mind also disposes logic and a reasoning ability that make the being that owns it to differentiate between very, quite, a little or slightly dangerous cases. And it's not fallacies about these cases that must dictate his actions but rather experience, logic and knowledge (including statistics).The core idea: This fallacy is almost indispensable to stay out of trouble, it can mean the difference between life and death, between dying like a dog and living like a king. — Agent Smith
My answer: No. There are no good or bad, helpful or harmful, acceptable ior unacceptable, etc. fallacies. They all diminish human reasoning.Question: Can all other fallacies be recommended as a rational course of action based on Algos/Thanatos? — Agent Smith
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.