Logic

Just a tad on logic, from the internet:

The concept of “emotive language” is a technical term used to refer to the use of specific terms that have specific argumentative effects. In particular, they can affect the interlocutor’s emotions, and lead him or her to accept or view a certain viewpoint or policy more favorably. Clearly, such words can be manipulated and become fallaciously used. Emotive use of language can be illustrated this example. Bertrand Russell, on the BBC radio in the Brains Trust program, gave three examples designed to illustrate the natural tendency to use words in a persuasive way that support one’s own view and attack an opposed view.

I am firm, you are obstinate, he is a pigheaded fool.

I am righteously indignant, you are annoyed, he is making a fuss over nothing.

I have reconsidered the matter, you have changed your mind, he has gone back on his word.

Here the wording reflects a viewpoint, pro or con. We are aware of the tendency to select words that support our own viewpoint, but generally we do not reflect very deeply on what we are doing. Even though we are aware that people are engaging in this kind of verbal persuasion all the time, we have little idea of how to defend against it in instances where it may be important to do so. It is widely accepted that definitions are trivial, and that arguing about definitions is even a sign of quibbling, characteristics of logic-chopping philosophers and lawyers. For this reason it is hard to get people to take the study of definitions seriously. If we consider some legal examples however, it can be seen how the framing of definitions is often far from trivial, and can have significant economic consequences. We will discuss some famous cases in the following blogs.

Enjoyed reading this article? Share it today

From <http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2015/03/emotive-language-in-argumentation-2/>

From <https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/>

Image: Pinterest.com

I am woman, hear me roar! (Smile)…. I think I’ve discovered that I’m better at illogic than logic, given my use of emotions to express my opinions. Anyway, I woke up this morning reflecting that the attack on the capitol was unthinkable; then another unthinkable possibility occurred to me, which made my visualized pursuit of logic shrink in its importance:

Wiping out the internet and/or the national electric grid. We know the bad guys–spammers and the dark internet have the power to castrate our democracy just prior to an election [misuse of emotional language]. I have seen little evidence of honesty or tendency to “share the wealth,” so, what could fend off their unlimited arsenal in the sabotage of democracy?

And how about the use of armed drones! When Trump wanted a flyover as he left the White House I wondered if he hoped for a little demolition of the White House.

Maybe a belief in hell should be brought back into vogue.