Re: syllogism

From: patty (pattyNO_at_SPAMicyberspace.net)
Date: 10/02/04 

Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 18:24:32 GMT

Sergio Navega wrote:
> "patty" <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> escreveu na mensagem
> news:zRw7d.292481$mD.268830@attbi_s02...
>
>>David Longley wrote:
>>
>>>[big snip]
>>>It's precisely because you (and others) think it's "a tempest in a tea
>>>pot" that I started and ended the post as I did. Despite what you tell
>>>yourself, you still don't appreciate where the above slip takes you,
>>>even though "the lecture" provides a very clear warning, and despite me
>>>having written thousands of posts which highlight consequences of the
>>>failure to see it for what it is. Elevating it from a storm in a teacup
>>>to a tempest in a teapot really just shows the extent to which you have
>>>not grasped the scope of the problem. Read Hahn again, look at the date,
>>>and think about what you're reading it on.
>>>
>>
>>What difference does it make? Tell me that ! Give me an example of
>>where calling something a property or calling it a class will make any
>>difference whatsoever - all other things equal !
>
>
> Patty, have you heard of the "madrassas" schools in Pakistan? Madrassas
> are Islamic religious schools. Many Taliban followers were also "educated"
> in such schools. The main activity in those schools is to "study" the
> "holy book", the Koran. No student is allowed to question or inquire.
> They have to read that and shove all that stuff into their poor little
> minds. Several of them are excellent in providing lessons of intolerance.
> Performance of students is measured in terms of how well one has memorized
> the "holy text". No need to understand (in fact, there isn't a way to
> understand anything, for the language is vague, elusive and subject to
> many interpretations). All that is required from students is *belief*,
> an unquestionable blind faith in what has been read. It is understandable
> why questions aren't allowed: there's no way to "explain" things. It is
> natural for us to find such "schools" (and their methods) abominable
> and heinous.
>
> We westerners are, fortunately, in a different situation, although
> occasionally we find some pathetic exceptions. On the good side, some
> of us have even had the priviledge of knowing teachers and mentors who
> inspired our intellectual growth, teachers who impartially showed us
> *both* sides of the story, and not only the one the teacher "likes most".
>
> For these teachers, what is important is not to "tell the conclusion"
> to the students. Such teachers are *not* "fountains of wisdom" being
> poured into the minds of their pupils. No. What is important to these
> teachers is to develop in the students the ability of reasoning *by
> themselves*, of reaching justifiable and solid conclusions by their
> own investigative efforts. Inquiry is not only allowed, it is
> incentivized and commended. And it is always answered with crystal
> clear answers.
>
> Perhaps now you should be asking yourself what all this has to do with
> your question above. You should see how relevant all this is when you
> read carefully the "answer" you have received to you question. There's
> no way to "grasp" it other than memorizing it. Here's a relevant
> segment:
>
> "Look up intensional opacity again...... say to youself
> "Patty, you don't understand what's he's telling you...Patty,
> you really don't understand the scope of what he's telling you...
> Patty, he's telling you something which is more than just a
> bit scary..... perhaps that's why you don't understand it....
> you don't want to believe it."
>
> You have two choices here: you enroll in "you know who's" madrassa and
> start repeating his mantra, or you *refuse to believe* anything that's
> thrown at you without proper explanation. In English. Not in a link
> elsewhere. In simple terms. Without appeals to authorities, and without
> rhetoric obfuscations. Clarity above all! You may even find yourself
> turning into (god forbid! ;-) a radical behaviorist, I don't care, but
> at least it will be something that *you* have reasoned, and not simply
> "believed".
>
> Sergio Navega
>
>

Well said :)

patty

Relevant Pages

  • Re: syllogism
    ... In article, Sergio Navega ... >> where calling something a property or calling it a class will make any ... >of us have even had the priviledge of knowing teachers and mentors who ... Does he feel less stupid if he ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: OT Gore refuses pledge
    ... If you had done better in school, you would've been in higher tier ... with better teachers who'd lead you to answers by asking ... Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
  • Re: OT Gore refuses pledge
    ... If you had done better in school, you would've been in higher tier ... unfortunate that you never had decent teachers, ... Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
  • Re: Fascinating book ...
    ... > You're probably right about the pronoun thing, but I wonder if calling ... The word '先生' is used not only for teachers, but also for medical doctors, ... novel writers, etc. So if you mean 'teacher' by '先生', you'll say: ...
    (sci.lang.japan)