Uncategorized

e-book Why Well Never Understand Each Other: A Non-Sequitur Look at Relationships (Non Sequitur)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Why Well Never Understand Each Other: A Non-Sequitur Look at Relationships (Non Sequitur) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Why Well Never Understand Each Other: A Non-Sequitur Look at Relationships (Non Sequitur) book. Happy reading Why Well Never Understand Each Other: A Non-Sequitur Look at Relationships (Non Sequitur) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Why Well Never Understand Each Other: A Non-Sequitur Look at Relationships (Non Sequitur) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Why Well Never Understand Each Other: A Non-Sequitur Look at Relationships (Non Sequitur) Pocket Guide.

For instance, most people recover from their colds a couple days after they take cold medication. But, of course, most people recover from their colds if they take no cold medication whatsoever.

Why We'll Never Understand Each Other: A Non Sequitur Look at Relationships

Many people get rich when they pray for wealth, but many people who never pray also get rich, and many people who pray to get rich stay poor; also, what about people who pray to other gods and get rich? The danger rests in the degree of skepticism; extreme skepticism will reveal all arguments post hoc , and, in fact, this is the standard argument of most defense lawyers and traditionally all industries when it comes to questions such as cigarettes and lung cancer, safety glass in automobiles, seat belts in automobiles, air bags in automobiles, causes of air pollution, effects of pollution on health and so on; normally scientists prove within a reasonable doubt causation decades before the public and those responsible for the cause stop crying post hoc.

Current, continuing debates over post hoc include pretty much every scientific argument that intersects with either faith evolution, AIDS , industry global warming or economic interests. Fallacy Ex: Drinkers are more likely than non-drinkers to get lung cancer, suggesting drinking causes lung cancer. It turns out there is a strong correlation between consuming alcohol and developing lung cancer. The post hoc fallacy would be asserting that alcohol consumption causes lung cancer; the actual reason is that people who drink more also tend to smoke, or smoke more, than non drinkers.

Red Herring This generally refers to changing the subject mid-debate, so that we start arguing about a tangential topic rather than the real or original issue. Ex: We start debating the evidence supporting evolutionary theory, but you bring up the fact that believing this theory is depressing. Ex: We start debating the evidence supporting global warming, but you bring up the fact that believing this theory is depressing Semantics or Equivocation also, Splitting Hairs, Playing With Words, or Using Legalisms Using the inherent ambiguity of language to distract from the actual ideas or issues, or deliberately rephrasing the opposing argument incorrectly, and then addressing that rephrasing.

Bill Clinton attempted to use this fallacy with disastrous results! His defense was based on the "fact" that both the law and Webster's dictionary have a very limited definition of "sex". Jim Leher: You had no sexual relationship with this young woman? President Clinton: There is not a sexual relationship. That is accurate. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again.

I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. Q "Did you have sex with Ms. Slippery Slope Arguing from the perspective that one change inevitably will lead to another. Ex: "If we legalize gay marriage, next people will want to legalize polygamy. For that matter, why not mandate the price of housing? If we believe Congress has the power to raise minimum wages, where do we go next?

John Boehner said: " With three states having legalized physician-assisted suicide, this provision could create a slippery slope for a more permissive environment for euthanasia, mercy-killing and physician-assisted suicide because it does not clearly exclude counseling about the supposed benefits of killing oneself. The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost.

And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil. Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion. The actual Bill his here.

Skip to page or "find: ". Straw Man One side of the argument is presented as so extreme that no one will agree with it.

Wiley Miller

Often this is done by referring to the exception, rather than the rule, and inferring that the exception is the rule. Technically, their use is probably not a fallacy, but their use tends to move an argument no where while inciting deep emotional responses. Thus, they are rhetorically useful and logically distracting.

In the case of this word, however, the fallacy is likely equivocation; the word has been rendered semantically useless by having been so often misused. He enrolled in Yale University in As an art major, Trudeau initially focused on painting, but soon discovered a greater interest in the graph. The company was established in or and is based in Newport News, Virginia. The company's revenue comes from advertising. Calvin and Hobbes is a daily comic strip by American cartoonist Bill Watterson that was syndicated from November 18, to December 31, Commonly cited as "the last great newspaper comic",[2][3][4] Calvin and Hobbes has enjoyed broad and enduring popularity, influence, and academic interest.

Calvin and Hobbes follows the humorous antics of Calvin, a precocious, mischievous, and adventurous six-year-old boy, and Hobbes, his sardonic stuffed tiger. Set in the contemporary suburban United States, the strip depicts Calvin's frequent flights of fancy and his friendship with Hobbes. Hobbes' dual nature is a defining motif for the strip: to Calvin, Hobbes is a living anthropomorphic tiger, while all the other characters see Hobbes as an inanimate stuffed toy.

Though the series does not mention specific political figures or current events, it does explore broad. A panel is an individual frame, or single drawing, in the multiple-panel sequence of a comic strip or comic book. A panel consists of a single drawing depicting a frozen moment. When multiple panels are present, they are often, though not always, separated by a short amount of space called a gutter.

These panels may all be of the same size, but many skilled cartoonists, such as Bill Waterson, Danny Vasquetto, Leonard Waldstein, Humphrey Powell, and Ginny Thomas vary the size and number of panels in each daily strip.


  1. Dont Erase Your Dreams!
  2. The Essential Gluten Free Restaurant Guide - Midwest Edition.
  3. The Philadelphia Quarry (Willie Black Mystery)!
  4. Origami Airplanes.
  5. Why We'll Never Understand Each Other : Wiley Miller : .
  6. CHILD, CHILDREN - All The Bible Teaches About.
  7. {{#if added}} Subscribe to Series {{else}} How Subscriptions Work {{/if}}.

The horizontal newspaper strip can also employ only a single panel, as sometimes seen in Wiley Miller's Non Sequitur. In a comic book or graphic novel, the shapes of panels and the number. It debuted November 12, He creates inventions which directly relate to the current state of affairs in the US. While flummoxed at times about Edison's mu. It was originally created as a distribution portal for comic strips on mobile phones, but in , the site was redesigned and expanded to include online strips and cartoons. GoComics publishes editorial cartoons, mobile content and daily comics.

Other features such as descriptions of strip characters, biographical information about cartoonists and links to other recommended feature pages are often included. As of , GoComics had more than 44, subscribers worldwide. Zippy the Pinhead is a fictional character who is the protagonist of Zippy, an American comic strip created by Bill Griffith. Zippy's most famous quotation, "Are we having fun yet? Although in name and appearance, Zippy is a microcephalic, he is distinctive not so much for his skull shape, or for any identifiable form of brain damage, but for his enthusiasm for philosophical non sequiturs "All life is a blur of Republicans and meat!

His wholehearted devotion to random artifacts satirizes the excesses of consumerism. The character of Zippy the Pinhead initially appeared in underground publications during the s. Background The strip was conceived by Lynch in during a period when he was experiencing feelings of great anger. He cannot eat. He cannot sleep. He can just barely growl.

Bound so tightly with tension and anger, he approaches the state of rigor mortis. Visually each strip is the same. The first three identical panels feature the black dog growling, tied to a post in a yard by a chain. He is between a tree on the left and one wall of a house with a window on the right.

The fourth panel is the same, but at night with a circle of light coming from the house's window. A word balloon appears in one or more of the panels, indicating speech from a member of one of the house's unseen family, either. The comic strip switcheroo also known as the Great Comics Switcheroonie or the Great April Fools' Day Comics Switcheroonie was a massive practical joke in which several comic strip writers and artists cartoonists , without the foreknowledge of their editors, traded strips for a day on April Fools' Day The Switcheroo was masterminded by comic strip creators Rick Kirkman and Jerry Scott, creators of the Baby Blues daily newspaper comic strip.

It is considered one of the all-time greatest switcheroos. Charles M. Schulz creator of Peanuts. The fictional portrayal of our Solar System has often included planets, moons, and other celestial objects which do not actually exist in reality. Some of these objects were, at one time, seriously considered as hypothetical planets which were either thought to have been observed, or were hypothesized in order to explain certain celestial phenomena.

Often such objects continued to be used in literature long after the hypotheses upon which they were based had been abandoned. Other non-existent Solar System objects used in fiction have been proposed or hypothesized by persons with no scientific standing, while yet others are purely fictional and were never intended as serious hypotheses about the structure of the Solar System. Vulcan Vulcan was a hypothetical planet supposed to revolve around the Sun inside the orbit of Mercury, invoked to explain certain irregularities in Mercury's orbit.

The planet was proposed as a hypothesis in , and abandoned not later than Non Sequitur is the only cartoon to win National Cartoonists Society Divisional Awards in both the comic strip and comic panel categories, and Miller is the only cartoonist to win an NCS Divisional Award in his first year of syndication. Fenton was his first syndicated strip. In , he was hired as an editorial cartoonist at the San Francisco Examiner.

Non Sequitur In , Wiley launched his popular Non Sequitur strip,[1] eventually syndicated to It distributed lifestyle and opinion columns, comic strips and other content. Their early syndication success came as a result of Andrews reading the Yale Daily News.

While clipping a column by a priest, he was distracted by Garry Trudeau's Bull Tales comic strip on the facing page. When Trudeau's Doonesbury debuted as a daily strip in two dozen newspapers on October 26, , it was the first strip from Universal Press Syndicate, and a Sunday strip was launched March 21, Circulation of Doonesbury eventually expande.

Hulot's Holiday. The issue is dated June , the same month the Tati film had a U. Origin Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman spotted the word printed in the Polish language section of a multi-languaged "Instructions for Use" sheet accompanying a bottle of aspirin, and Kurtzman, who was fascinated with unusual words, decided it would make an appropriate but meaningless background gag. After cutting the word out of the instruction sheet, he made copies and used rubber cement to paste "Potrzebie" randomly into the middle of Mad satires.

Appearances Potrzebie was first used in a story in Mad Mark J. Cohen November 19, [1] — December 18, was a realtor and a collector of comic books and comic book art, and a prominent cartoonists' agent and dealer in original comics art. He was an occasional contributor to the Gasoline Alley comic strip. Cohen was a native of Stockton, California. As a collector of cartoon art, Cohen amassed an estimated 9, items of original Mad original art. His interest was sparked upon seeing an exhibition catalogue from a exhibit at San Francisco's de Young Museum titled Meet the Artist.

Eventually he assembled more than of such self-caricatures. Tom the Dancing Bug is a weekly satirical comic strip by cartoonist and political commentator Ruben Bolling that covers mostly US current events from a liberal point of view. The strip appears in mainstream and alternative weekly newspapers, as well as on the Boing Boing website. For seven years, I was sending packages out and following up with phone calls, trying to get editors to run t.

It uses the photo-manipulation technique popularized by Adobe Photoshop and other image editing programs to insert actual photographs and paintings of the characters into situations, instead of more conventional methods. It is syndicated online by GoComics, a division of Andrews McMeel Universal, and has been collected into six trade paperback editions. Publication history The strip debuted in a discussion on a LiveJournal blog on February 8, Sungenis, who had been planning on creating a webcomic called In The Land Of Wonderful Clipart the title was an homage to Winsor McCay's Little Nemo in Slumberland did the first strip as a one-shot joke commenting on what he perceived as a lack of humor in the comic strip Garfield.

Eventually, he moved the strip to its own blog. On April 5, , the strip joined Comics She. Pokey the Penguin is an online comic strip created in It chronicles the adventures of a penguin named Pokey and a large cast of other characters. Pokey comics are drawn crudely and minimalistically, and they consist largely of a string of non-sequiturs and absurd journeys, with a token effort towards more traditional plots and continuity such as the conflict with the Italians over arctic-circle candy that tend to be established through oblique references to off-screen characters and non-events.

Today, new comic strips appear sporadically, although formerly the site was updated daily. He is accompanied by several recurring characters, of which the "Little Girl" is the most commonly seen. His main antagonists are the Italians, whom Pokey suspects of intending to steal his Arctic Circle-Candy which grows in the Arctic. The Italians are usually represented by a ship on the horizon flying the It. Chad Carpenter born ca. Since then, he has self-syndicated it to over newspapers,[1] an unusually high amount for strips in self-syndication.

Early life Chad Carpenter was born in Michigan before moving to Alaska with his family at age two, where his father began a career with the Alaska State Troopers. As that job entailed being transferred to different posts across the state, the family lived in a wide variety of communities, which provided him an opportunity to be immersed in nature as he grew up starting at an early age. In a interview, he gave a characteristically tongue-in-cheek account of his early life, explaining that he came to Alaska "because of all the restraining orders", and that on the eve of entering the Alaska State Trooper Academy to follow in his father's footsteps, he decided against it because "I knew that I wa.

Andrews McMeel Syndication formerly Universal Uclick is an American content syndicate which provides syndication in print, online and on mobile devices for a number of lifestyle and opinion columns, comic strips and cartoons and various other content. It was formed in and in January was renamed to its current name. Trudeau won the Pulitzer Prize for editorial cartooning in for his work on Doonesbury, and the strip is now syndicated in more than 1, newspapers worldwide.

The name of the strip is a portmanteau created from the pair's surnames. Publication history WUMO debuted in as a comic strip competition entry named Kalzone, completed a few hours before the entry deadline. Submitted under the pseudonym "Pernille Richter Andersson", the strip won the competition, and a one-month run in the national newspaper Politiken. He is notable for his micromanagement, gross incompetence, obliviousness to his surroundings, and unhelpful buzzword usage; yet somehow retains power in the workplace. In the Dilbert TV series, in which he is voiced by comedian Larry Miller, the character is notably smarter although still quite stupid and inept and more openly corrupt.

Mr Perkins in Despicable Me is visually based on him. Dilbert The PHB's real name is unknown in the comic, although in one episode of the TV series "The Return" , he signs for a package using his line dancing pseudonym "Eunice". Later in that episode, two other aliases are posted on the "Most Wanted" board in the post office however, he thinks that is because they like him. In another episode of the s. Steven Alexander Wright born December 6, is an American stand-up comedian, actor, writer, and film producer.

He is known for his distinctly lethargic voice and slow, deadpan delivery of ironic, philosophical and sometimes nonsensical jokes, paraprosdokians, non sequiturs, anti-humor, and one-liners with contrived situations. ToyFare was a monthly magazine published by Wizard Entertainment that focused on collectible action figures, busts, statues, and maquettes.

It previewed new and upcoming lines and figures each month, as well as providing a price guide for toy lines, both new and old. ToyFare was also known for its satirical humor, which could be found on almost every page. Publication history The magazine began publication in ,[1] initially borrowing many features which first appeared in its sister magazine, Wizard.

It maintained a steady monthly schedule, reaching its th issue in December ToyFare was well known for its use of alternative covers, a feature which was first utilized with issue 20, and was used almost every issue after Along with its sister publication,Wizard, ToyFare ceased publication on January 24, Milt Gross March 4, — November 29, was an American cartoonist and animator.

His work is noted for its exaggerated cartoon style and Yiddish-inflected English dialogue.

ASKING 1,000 GIRLS FOR SEX (TINDER EXPERIMENT)

He originated the non-sequitur "Banana Oil! His character Count Screwloose's admonition, "Iggy, keep an eye on me! The National Cartoonists Society fund to aid indigent cartoonists and their families for many years was known as the Milt Gross Fund. In , it was absorbed by the Society's Foundation, which continues the charitable work of the Fund. It was one of several short-lived comic strips and other undertakings, including his first animated film bef. A weasel word, or anonymous authority, is an informal term for words and phrases such as "researchers believe" and "most people think" which make arguments appear specific or meaningful, even though these terms are at best ambiguous and vague.

Using weasel words may allow the audience to later deny any specific meaning if the statement is challenged, because the statement was never specific in the first place. Weasel words can be a form of tergiversation, and may be used in advertising and political statements to mislead.

Weasel words can soften or under-state a biased or otherwise controversial statement. An example of this is using terms like "somewhat" or "in most respects", which make a sentence more ambiguous than it would be without them. Current categories Advertising Illustration Award From its inception until this award was known as the Advertising and Illustration award. The following year, it divided into two separate categories, Advertising and Illustration, combining again from to They divided again in This category was titled Commercial in and This rule can work very well for certain loads, road conditions and speeds, but very poorly for others.

The rule is consistent — but not necessarily creating a good quality outcome. Thus the rule needs to be refined, if your weight is less than 2, kilograms and your speed is less than 80 kilometres per hour, then 50 metres may be the best spot for the decision boundary, however for every kilograms add an additional 10 metres and for every 10 kilometres per hour add another 10 metres… and so on.

Testing these parameters is quite easy and following the set of rules leads to a consistent good quality outcome and then allows the initial rule to be modified based on the test results. This example seems like a simple one to analyse and quite obvious. Another obvious set of rules is around medication. A medication should have a primary desired effect for a dose for a certain percentage of the population with minimal negative side effects, otherwise it should not be prescribed by a medical practitioner.

The creation of the pharmaceuticals should meet certain standards to ensure that the effect of the medication is what is predicted by the clinical trials rather than being biased by some random element introduced to pack out the active ingredient to make the drug easier to administer. Seems sensible — you know what you are taking, you know what it does and you know how to measure its effectiveness.

The rules for governing effectiveness and for creating the medication are consistent, which should give a consistent outcome. These rules have been refined over time to ensure a high quality result. Combined, the vast majority of prescription medication is both consistent and good quality.

The factors the interfere with the consistent quality is for more variations in humans rather than medications. People take chemicals for medical conditions that are not prescribed. When the medical professionals or governments ask for these to be controlled by the same set of rules, the alternative professionals raise arms citing this is unfair or oppressive. Independent tests of supplements have found that a concerning proportion of supplements do not contain the active ingredient listed on the container, or do not contain the dosage listed either too high or too low.

You Can't Change the Past - Why Talk About it? | Psychology Today

There is no clinical evidence that the alternative medication or supplement has any therapeutic effect and no control on manufacture methods, which has lead to the inclusion of allergen fillers. If the rules used to govern these supplements and alternative medicines were applied to the prescribed medications, people would die, professionals would be sued and their would be a government inquiry.

So why are the rules for the goose not being applied to the gander? Back to the point in all this. Any time an argument is made that uses inconsistent rules, that argument has an inherent logical fallacy. Keep in mind, that while consistent rules will give a consistent outcome for both the goose and the gander, if those rules are terrible, the result will be also terrible. This means the definition cannot be tested and negates the ability to discuss. If I define gravity as an attractive force between any two masses, then that is what it is. The falsifiable test for this idea is to try to locate a mass that does not respond with attraction to another mass.

In other words, if all counter examples are excluded, then the definition has no real meaning. By framing it in the True Scotsman variant, the burden of proving the statement is removed as the evidence is discounted. This fallacy has a conclusion that is not connected to the premise. There are several types of disconnect — common, undistributed middle, affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, affirming a disjunct and denying a conjunct. The commonality of all of these is that the argument A is not properly related to the conclusion C, thus C in not valid, or that assuming C cannot give validity to A.

This is simply where one thing has nothing to do with the other. This non-sequitur assumes a bi-directionality of the consequences — what goes one way must go the other. On the surface this seems reasonable, yet when you consider how this looks in a Venn Diagram, where all of one circle is inside another, you can clearly see that this is not true. Here we have two categories, Red A and Green B.

All humans have a vertebrae that is all of B is a member of A. Daisy has a vertebrae, therefore Daisy is a human. This seems true and accurate, yet when we realise that Daisy is a cow, we realise the mistake. Not all creatures with vertebrae are human. Another bi-directional error is denying the antecedent first part because the consequent is false. Consider our diagram above — Green B is now people who have brown skin and Red A is people who have brown eyes.

This does not follow, because having brown eyes does not require you to have brown skin, even though in this example having brown skin does require you to have brown eyes. Another way to look at this is mathematically: If Alpha is true, then Beta is true. Beta is not true, therefore Alpha is not true. The second statement was not defined by the first statement, so it is not necessarily true — Beta can be false and Alpha can still be true.

Let us have two items A and B. Note the difference in the third phrase. This can also be seen as a false dichotomy, trying to create only one true answer. I know that some people are defined as neither or both, yet on government forms in Australia, the logic is you are either male or female, and you must tick one, not both nor neither. In this case, the statement is that both statement A and B cannot be true exclusive or.

This can be useful. The statement is only useful if one of the statements is true, thus if I am in a lake, I am definitely not at home, and if I am at home, I am definitely not in a lake. I cannot, however, conclude that because I am not in a lake I must be at home. Causality is a relationship of two or more events with a directional component, where one event causes the following event. This fallacy can be bidirectional, mistaking avoiding the first event as a valid way to avoid the second.

In a causal relationship, one event causes the next event. There is no wriggle room here, event A must be followed by event B so long as an external factor does not interfere with the usual occurrence. The two events are separated in time, so cannot be simultaneous. A good example of a causal relationship is jumping and landing anywhere on Earth. If I jump defined by lifting the entirety of your own body off the ground , then you will land so long as this is done anywhere on Earth and nothing prevents your landing such as a cable, or someone catching you, upwards blowing air etc.

The events must be sequential and proximal connected in some way.


  1. Logical Fallacies!
  2. Guess Who I Pulled Last Night?.
  3. Bestselling Series.
  4. The Universitys Role in Propaganda (American Politics Book 1).
  5. Zemsta?

Post-hoc ergo propter hoc mistakes a causal relationship as demonstrated above, with two sequential events that do not have a relationship. Two very similar sequences can demonstrate the difference between the two:. I take the proscribed doseage of insulin and my blood sugar level stabilises. I take a homeopathic remedy and my headache goes away. On the surface these two sequences look the same, Event A was followed by Event B, which ended with result R. If the first example did not have event B, then result R would not occur aside from another specific intervention. In the second example, denying event B the homoeopathic remedy still ends in result R.

Reversing post-hoc ergo propter hoc can lead to some strange thinking, such as having to turn the door handle three times when locking it to ensure the house is not broken into. After all, in all the time I have been doing that, the house has not been broken into… so it must work, right? Turning the lock once was followed by a break in, thus turning it once causes a break in.

Since then I have turned the lock three times and I have never been broken into, so it must work, right? Wrong, there is no relationship between Event A and Result R, merely a one of coincidence. To avoid the post-hoc ergo propter hoc error, check to see if any research has been done to concretely link the two phenomena, or to demonstrate that it has not been linked. Remember folks, extraordinary claims require extraordinary amounts of evidence to support it. Or the only evidence is done outside of peer reviewed articles, or the evidence relies on testimonials and enecdotes.

If you reduce an argument too far, it becomes absurd, or blatantly wrong. Clearly any argument can be rendered in a similar light, so using this technique to demonstrate that an argument is true or false is illogical. If an argument has an absurd conclusion to prove the premise, the odds are the arguer has reduced the argument to absurdity. The first argument seems reasonable as a massless anvil would be buoyant and would potentially float. As it does not do so the assertion of mass in the anvil must be true.

The second argument also seems reasonable, if the Christian Bible is the word of the Christian God, then it cannot be corrupted by man. Yet closer examination will show that this statement is actually quite in error. Firstly, there is no evidence that the bible is the word of god, especially given all of the varying versions, interpretations, errors and contradictions found in the bible.

This does not stop this argument being used though. Both arguments seems similar and perhaps true. A society without rules would seem quite chaotic, yet when instances of this have occurred, the chaos is often brief before some kind of rule set becomes imposed by the people themselves. Even in the chaos, some sets of rules can be found. While not necessarily true in all cases, the first argument seems reasonable as a general rule of thumb. The second argument appears to be basically the same thing, yet morality has been demonstrated to be irrelevant to religion and belief systems.

Examples of theists and a-theists are available demonstrating both moral and amoral behaviour. This argument relies on the inability to contradict the premise. If you can, contradict the argument, then the argument is false. The problem is this relies on everything being true or false and negates fuzzy logic and alternative measuring systems. When does a table become a stool, or a stool a table? Does it have to be one or the other, is hybridisation possible, or does function define the form?

Here are two common absurd examples created by over reduction. Evolution is quite a large and complex concept. It is frequently reduced to a digestible level to give the basic idea to the lay person. Pretty much every lay person gets that basic idea:. A while ago humans came from primates, a long time ago we came from slime. Life changes. Changes that add strength survive, the others die out. Of course, the above is ridiculously simplified. People spend their entire careers studying and refining this concept in many different fields of study.

The fallacy comes in when this reduced concept is then used to attack and defend the complex idea. At this point, the reduced concept become an absurd argument. Like Evolution, Global Warming which is a more accurate description is a big and complicated concept that is simplified for the lay person. Most lay people get this basic description:. Again, it is a nice and tidy concept. When it falls down is when this reduced concept is used to try to attack and defend the full complex concept developed by thousands of scientists using millions and possibly billions of points of data to explain the never before done experiment of what happens when we humans change the ratio of energy into our planet from the sun to energy out via pollutants.

When a chain of logic leads to an extreme scenario, it is referred to as a slippery slope, such as slowly tipping an object off the edge of a plateau and it will slide down to the bottom under its own power. Frequently the chain of logic is tenuous and the outcome undesirable, leading fear of the initial step or steps with the result that no steps are taken.

When the chain of logic is not tenuous it is a useful tool, but a tool that is rarely used. When used erroneously, the slippery slope logic becomes a fallacy simply because the chain of logic between the first action to the last action does not hold up. When used correctly, the slippery slope argument can be used to demonstrate reasonable dire consequences, but only a few steps along.

If the number of steps is too great perhaps 5 or more , then the complexity of each interacting event becomes too great to give any reliability to the outcome. This is generally the error introduced by the slippery slope logical fallacy. Additionally the outcome is generally exaggerated and dire. This evokes a fear or repulsive emotion in the recipient of the argument, distorting their value system when it comes to evaluating the validity of each step in the slippery slope.

Non Sequitur Vulgar message to President Trump “We fondly say go f*** yourself...Trump."

There are two main forms of the slippery slope logical fallacy, implied and explicit. With the implied slippery slope logical fallacy, the steps between the initial event and the dire outcome is implied and not specifically identified. In some instances this may even turn out to be correct, yet in the vast majority of situations, not only do people not become alcoholics in the medical sense , but also relatively few drunk people are involved in horrific car accidents, especially that kill their friends.

The dire consequences evoke a fear of the outcome, prompting you to overvalue the tenuous chain of logic leading to this outcome. Many people drink responsibly, invalidating this fear driven slippery slope argument. The explicit version of this logical fallacy lists all of the necessary steps in the chain, and each step can seem feasible, even the outcome can seem feasible, but the slippery slope mechanism overstates the likelihood of the outcome. In a mechanistic universe a long chain of actions and reactions can indeed lead to a predictable outcome Laplaze Machine, or Demon , but in a chaotic probability driven universe like ours , the next steps become less and less predictable.

An example of a highly predictable mechanistic model can be demonstrated by use of a gravity shoot releasing a billiard ball at a set angle and speed onto a billiard table such that the ball bounces off 3 walls and goes into a pocket. Works every time. Yet if we organise for 20 or 30 bounces, even this model begins to break down. More realistically speaking, crumple a soda can and place it on a table. Slowly push that soda can off the table until it falls. Now mark the place where it ends up stops moving.

Put the soda can back on the table and slowly push it off again. When dealing with life forms, the soda can example above is far more like reality than the billiard ball example. To translate choice into the first billiard ball example, each step bounce of the ball on the billiard table has a number of angles it can now bounce off into, depending on the chooser, which will change each progressive bounce such that the final pocket if any the billiard ball ends up in is far different to the preceding and next one.

If chains of events are so tenuous, how does science allow us to make predictions at all? This is why — the study of nature is far more probabilistic than not. In general, things happen roughly the same, yet each event is different. Consider our soda can example above. The exact tipping point depends on a number of factors — the orientation of the crumpled soda can, the speed at which it is pushed, wind currents, the temperature of the soda can, the surface, the air and so on.

If we know this, we then need to contend with the air currents on the way down, the rotational spin imparted on the crumpled soda can as it falls off the edge and so on. Eventually it will strike a spot on the ground and bounce a few times. Where it strikes the ground, how it strikes the ground, velocity of the soda can, angular momentum of the soda can and the type of material of the ground will all play a part in defining where and how the soda can will bounce.

Each successive bounce will have a similar set of calculations. If we know enough… we can actually mostly work out where the soda can will land, much like the billiard balls. Yet each push off the edge will be a new problem — a unique problem. The repeated problem, though, has predictable components. The soda can will slide on the table, it will fall, it will land and bounce, it will end up somewhere.

So lets do this experiment times. We will discover that the final location of the crumpled soda can has a high value close to the landing zone, petering out to a low value of locations far away from the landing zone by value, we mean probability of landing. There will be a boundary of maximum landing that the crumpled soda can will not go past, but it will be sparsely populated with landings, while the closer in section will have a higher population of landings.

The initial impact zone will have a smaller version of the final landing zone. The fall location at the edge of the table will have a similarly smaller location. Each step from the push to the final resting location becomes less predictable, but still has a level of prediction.

On average, the location can be predicted, the likely outcome known. If we changed the table and floor to a set of stairs, the complexity goes up, but we can still work out the area that the crumpled soda can will rest in rather than the specific location. That area is highly predictable, even though the stairs may be steps long. Often in science, the area of final rest is the outcome we are after, rather than the specific location this time. The variables have made it too hard to predict. The calculations for this are on the one hand monstrous, yet also on the other hand elegant.

Also most satellites have a fudge factor built into them — a slight miss can be realigned en-route and corrected for. In your computers central processing unit CPU is error correction, so when the high speed electrons misbehave and do some of that quantum stuff, the non-average result is detected and adjusted. This happens remarkably fast, all things considered allowing you to read this from the web.

We only need this error correction because of the precision we are demanding from our electronics. One may think, at this point, that the slippery slope kind of seems reasonable. If the arguer were to take enough factors into consideration in their prediction of results, then they would be. It is like predicting that the crumpled soda can will land at a particular extreme position. That is the error — that the odds are overstated because the feared consequences are so extreme.

When a faulty argument is noted and objected to, the insertion of fallacious arguments to shore up the falling argument or the subtraction of counter evidence is known as Special Pleading. These additional explanations are tacked on to the original explanation as an afterthought add-on to fix the fault in the original infrastructure of the argument. It fails. The last statement adds a spurious explanation as to why the counter evidence is faulty.

It generally has a flaw in the logic, evidence or makes an untestable claim. Stacking the Deck, Ignoring the Counter Evidence, Slanting and the One Sided Argument quite literally refers to ignoring evidence that counters the argument made, dismissing vital evidence rather than addressing it. In essence, subtracting from the discussion. This is an argument style that requires further and further details to be provided such that there is no way to provide evidence of each gap in the pattern.

The God of the Gaps technique is to make the argument look bad by asking for evidence that is not needed, and then dismissing the argument when the evidence is not located, or the arguer attempts to educate the individual on how the scientific method works.

Electromagnetic radiation is an excellent example of a spectrum. Keep going and you will never stop until you reach the limit of your equipment — but never the limit of the spectrum. Scientific evidence, if I can use such a misleading term, is often not discovering a perfect spectrum like this.