| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Intelli Gence" |
| Date: |
01 Jun 2004 04:35:17 AM |
| Object: |
Re: What slavs and slaves have in common |
Russia sells it. But the onus is always on the buyer. If I wanted human
sculps and fresh brains, surely there exists a seller, but who is
guilty?
So a drug abuser is more guilty than the drug pusher. :-)
Are you a member of the organization?
********************************************
THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO GENERALISATIONS
********************************************
This point comes up again and again. People just don't get.
Do I have to post it weekly as a new message for people
to keep it in mind?
People start using an exception to counteract an argument, even though the
argument referred to a generalisation and not a complete true statement.
"onus is always on the buyer" is a GENERALISATION. "drug abuser" is one of
its EXCEPTIONS. They don't call em exceptions for nothing, exceptions
disagree with generalisations. Thats why they are called exceptions. Of
course drug user is less guilty than drug pusher because he is addicted to
drugs, but you can't use this against my argument that IN GENERAL buyers are
more guilty that sellers. UNLESS you can disprove my GENERAL case by finding
so many exceptions that the balance will be turned over and your exceptions
become the new generalisation and my generalisation becomes an exception.
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Want to have instant messaging, and chat rooms, and discussion
groups for your local users or business, you need dbabble!
-- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dbabble.htm ----
.
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: What slavs and slaves have in common |
01 Jun 2004 09:20:23 AM |
|
|
"Intelli Gence" <vd1739@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40bc4dd6$1@clarion.carno.net.au...
Russia sells it. But the onus is always on the buyer. If I wanted human
sculps and fresh brains, surely there exists a seller, but who is
guilty?
So a drug abuser is more guilty than the drug pusher. :-)
Are you a member of the organization?
They are guilty more, less, or equivalently, as we the peoples decide and
judicate.
********************************************
THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO GENERALISATIONS
********************************************
Cicero's defense of L. Cornelius Balbo (56 B.C.) is the earliest known citation
of this logic and is sometimes cited as the origin of the phrase. Balbo was
accused of having been illegally granted Roman citizenship. The prosecutor
pointed out that treaties with some non-Roman peoples prohibited granting them
citizenship and suggested this should be inferred in Balbo's case. Cicero replied
"If the exception makes such an action unlawful, where there is no exception the
action must necessarily be lawful." (Quod si exceptio facit ne liceat, ubi <non
sit exceptum, ibi> necesse est licere.)
http://alt-usage-english.org/exception_proves.html
The common misconception (which you will find in several books, including the
Dictionary of Misinformation) is that "proves" in this phrase means "tests".
That is *not* the case, although "proof" *does* mean "test" in such locutions as
"proving ground", "proofreader", "proof spirit", and "The proof of the pudding is
in the eating."
As MEU says, "the original legal sense" of the "the exception proves the rule" is
as follows: "'Special leave is given for men to be out of barracks tonight till
11.0 p.m.'; 'The exception proves the rule' means that this special leave implies
a rule requiring men, except when an exception is made, to be in earlier. The
value of this in interpreting statutes is plain."
MEU2 adds: "'A rule is not proved by exceptions unless the exceptions themselves
lead one to infer a rule' (Lord Atkin). The formula in full is exceptio probat
regulam in casibus non exceptis." [That's Latin for "The exception proves the
rule in cases not excepted."]
The phrase seems to date from the 17th century. (Anthony Cree, in Cree's
Dictionary of Latin Quotations (Newbury, 1978) says that the phrase comes from
classical Latin, which it defines as Latin spoken before A.D. 400; but no
classical citations have come to our attention.)
http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxtheexc.html
--------------------------------------
Q: Would an exception to some pattern or consistency not prove the need for a
rule, not the existence of one?
A: It has caused as much confusion as any other in the language and is often
argued about. The misunderstanding has been amplified by well-meaning but
incorrect attempts going back a century to explain it.
These days it is often used sweepingly to justify an inconsistency. Those who use
it seem to be saying that the existence of a case that doesn’t follow a rule
proves the rule applies in all other cases and so is generally correct,
notwithstanding the exception. This is nonsense, because the logical implication
of finding that something doesn’t follow a rule is that there must be something
wrong with the rule. As the old maxim has it, you need find only one white crow
to disprove the rule that all crows are black.
It has often been suggested in reference works that prove here is really being
used in the sense of “test” (as it does in terms like “proving ground” or “the
proof of the pudding is in the eating”, or in the printer’s proof, which is a
test page run off to see that all is correct with the typesetting). It is said
that the real idea behind the saying is that the presence of what looks like an
exception tests whether a rule is really valid or not. If you can’t reconcile the
supposed exception with the rule, there must indeed be something wrong with the
rule. The expression is indeed used in this sense, but that’s not where it comes
from or what it strictly means.
The problem with that attempted explanation is that those putting it forward have
picked on the wrong word to challenge. It’s not a false sense of proof that
causes the problem, but exception. We think of it as meaning some case that doesn
’t follow the rule, but the original sense was of someone or something that is
granted permission not to follow a rule that otherwise applies. The true origin
of the phrase lies in a medieval Latin legal principle: exceptio probat regulam
in casibus non exceptis, which may be translated as “the exception confirms the
rule in the cases not excepted”.
Let us say that you drive down a street somewhere and find a notice which says
“Parking prohibited on Sundays”. You may reasonably infer from this that parking
is allowed on the other six days of the week. A sign on a museum door which says
“Entry free today” leads to the implication that entry is not free on other days
(unless it’s a marketing ploy like the never-ending sales that some stores have,
but let’s not get sidetracked). H W Fowler gave an example from his wartime
experience: “Special leave is given for men to be out of barracks tonight until
11pm”, which implies a rule that in other cases men must be in barracks before
that time. So, in its strict sense, the principle is arguing that the existence
of an allowed exception to a rule reaffirms the existence of the rule.
Despite the number of reference books which carefully explain the origin and true
meaning of the expression, it is unlikely that it will ever be restored to strict
correctness. The usual rule in lexicography is that sayings progress towards
corruption and decay, never the reverse. Unless this one proves to be an
exception ...
http://www.quinion.com/words/qa/qa-exc1.htm
--------------------------------------------
Fallacy: Composition
The fallacy of Composition is committed when a conclusion is drawn about a whole
based on the features of its constituents when, in fact, no justification
provided for the inference. There are actually two types of this fallacy, both of
which are known by the same name (because of the high degree of similarity).
The first type of fallacy of Composition arises when a person reasons from the
characteristics of individual members of a class or group to a conclusion
regarding the characteristics of the entire class or group (taken as a whole).
More formally, the "reasoning" would look something like this.
Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.
This line of reasoning is fallacious because the mere fact that individuals have
certain characteristics does not, in itself, guarantee that the class (taken as a
whole) has those characteristics.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html
--------------------------------------
Fallacy: Division
The fallacy of Division is committed when a person infers that what is true of a
whole must also be true of its constituents and justification for that inference
is not provided.
There are two main variants of the general fallacy of Division:
The first type of fallacy of Division is committed when 1) a person reasons that
what is true of the whole must also be true of the parts and 2) the person fails
to justify that inference with the required degree of evidence. More formally,
the "reasoning" follows this sort of pattern:
The whole, X, has properties A, B, C, etc.
Therefore the parts of X have properties A, B, C, etc.
That this line of reasoning is fallacious is made clear by the following case: 4
is an even number. 1 and 3 are parts of 4. Therefore 1 and 3 are even.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/division.html
------------------------------------------
This point comes up again and again. People just don't get.
Do I have to post it weekly as a new message for people
to keep it in mind?
People start using an exception to counteract an argument, even though the
argument referred to a generalisation and not a complete true statement.
"onus is always on the buyer" is a GENERALISATION. "drug abuser" is one of
its EXCEPTIONS. They don't call em exceptions for nothing, exceptions
disagree with generalisations. Thats why they are called exceptions. Of
course drug user is less guilty than drug pusher because he is addicted to
drugs, but you can't use this against my argument that IN GENERAL buyers are
more guilty that sellers. UNLESS you can disprove my GENERAL case by finding
so many exceptions that the balance will be turned over and your exceptions
become the new generalisation and my generalisation becomes an exception.
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Want to have instant messaging, and chat rooms, and discussion
groups for your local users or business, you need dbabble!
-- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dbabble.htm ----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" |
|
| Title: Re: What slavs and slaves have in common |
01 Jun 2004 10:26:35 AM |
|
|
Intelli Gence wrote:
Russia sells it. But the onus is always on the buyer. If I wanted human
sculps and fresh brains, surely there exists a seller, but who is
guilty?
So a drug abuser is more guilty than the drug pusher. :-)
Are you a member of the organization?
********************************************
THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO GENERALISATIONS
********************************************
This point comes up again and again. People just don't get.
Do I have to post it weekly as a new message for people
to keep it in mind?
People start using an exception to counteract an argument, even though the
argument referred to a generalisation and not a complete true statement.
"onus is always on the buyer" is a GENERALISATION. "drug abuser" is one of
its EXCEPTIONS. They don't call em exceptions for nothing, exceptions
disagree with generalisations. Thats why they are called exceptions. Of
course drug user is less guilty than drug pusher because he is addicted to
drugs, but you can't use this against my argument that IN GENERAL buyers are
more guilty that sellers. UNLESS you can disprove my GENERAL case by finding
so many exceptions that the balance will be turned over and your exceptions
become the new generalisation and my generalisation becomes an exception.
In general it can confidently be stated that there are many
false generalizations. A way of testing generalizations is
with specific cases. Of course there are EXCEPTIONS, and
there is even a saying, something like "it's the exception
that disproves the rule"
--
Rostyk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Intelli Gence" |
|
| Title: Re: What slavs and slaves have in common |
01 Jun 2004 11:29:42 AM |
|
|
People start using an exception to counteract an argument, even though
the
argument referred to a generalisation and not a complete true statement.
"onus is always on the buyer" is a GENERALISATION. "drug abuser" is one
of
its EXCEPTIONS. They don't call em exceptions for nothing, exceptions
disagree with generalisations. Thats why they are called exceptions. Of
course drug user is less guilty than drug pusher because he is addicted
to
drugs, but you can't use this against my argument that IN GENERAL buyers
are
more guilty that sellers. UNLESS you can disprove my GENERAL case by
finding
so many exceptions that the balance will be turned over and your
exceptions
become the new generalisation and my generalisation becomes an
exception.
In general it can confidently be stated that there are many
false generalizations.
You don't need 'in general' above since you are talking about
generalisations in general when you say 'there are many false
generalisations'. You see what I'm saying Rostyk?
A way of testing generalizations is
with specific cases.
Wrong. If a specific case fails then it automatically becomes an exception.
This is how generalisations protect themselves against specific examples.
Thats why we love generalisations. Otherwise generalisations would have been
useless.
there is even a saying, something like "it's the exception
that disproves the rule"
Here you have 'the rule' which is an exact truth. Surely I agree it would be
disproved by a counter example. Its called proof by contradiction in
mathematics. However, as I said, generaliations can not be disproved by a
small number of counterexamples.
Please keep soc.culture.ukrainian in the list. True, Ukes are unable to
contribute to an intelligent discussion, but just to be consistant we should
not delete newsgroups, okay Rostyk?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" |
|
| Title: Re: What slavs and slaves have in common |
01 Jun 2004 02:36:11 PM |
|
|
Intelli Gence wrote:
People start using an exception to counteract an argument,
even though the argument referred to a generalisation and
not a complete true statement.
"onus is always on the buyer" is a GENERALISATION. "drug abuser"
is one of its EXCEPTIONS. They don't call em exceptions for nothing,
exceptions disagree with generalisations. Thats why they are called
exceptions.
Of course drug user is less guilty than drug pusher because
he is addicted to drugs,
but you can't use this against my argument that IN GENERAL
buyers are more guilty that sellers.
and why not? I did, and my method of argument is completely valid.
UNLESS you can disprove my GENERAL case by finding
so many exceptions that the balance will be turned over
and your exceptions become the new generalisation
and my generalisation becomes an exception.
In general it can confidently be stated that there are many
false generalizations.
You don't need 'in general' above since you are talking about
generalisations in general when you say 'there are many false
generalisations'. You see what I'm saying Rostyk?
No ;-) and I wrote it, intentionally. Do you see what I'm, saying?
A way of testing generalizations is
with specific cases.
Wrong. If a specific case fails then it automatically becomes an exception.
This is how generalisations protect themselves against specific examples.
Thats why we love generalisations.
And confirms your multiple personality disorder. 8-)
Otherwise generalisations would have been useless.
For your intended purposes ;)
there is even a saying, something like "it's the exception
that disproves the rule"
Here you have 'the rule' which is an exact truth. Surely I agree it would be
disproved by a counter example. Its called proof by contradiction in
mathematics. However, as I said, generaliations can not be disproved by a
small number of counterexamples.
Please keep soc.culture.ukrainian in the list. True, Ukes are unable to
contribute to an intelligent discussion, but just to be consistant we should
not delete newsgroups, okay Rostyk?
No. I'd rather not.
You are too brilliant for scu.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "xlmcn" |
|
| Title: Re: What slavs and slaves have in common |
01 Jun 2004 12:17:27 PM |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------080301050601020407020709
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
x-no-archive: yes
Intelli Dupa wrote:
People start using an exception to counteract an argument, even though
Hey, Itelli Dupa, go farting to some other place.
--------------080301050601020407020709
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-2">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
x-no-archive: yes<br>
<br>
Intelli Dupa wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid40bcaef7$1@clarion.carno.net.au">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">People start using an exception to counteract an argument, even though
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!----></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Hey, Itelli Dupa, go farting to some other place.<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------080301050601020407020709--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
