Tuesday, November 30, 2010
cacophony
Monday, November 29, 2010
beaucoup
Sunday, November 28, 2010
disheveled
Saturday, November 27, 2010
calumet
: | a highly ornamented ceremonial pipe of the American Indians Where it says "November 27" in huge, bold letters, it should actually say "CALUMET." The word of the day is not "November 27." If it was, I would have to discuss this particular day, how it falls between November 26 and 28, how this was the day that Saint Anastasius began his reign as Pope in 399, and Shakespeare married Anne Hathaway in 1582, and in 1910, Penn Station opened its doors to a chilly New York City. Or I would talk about how in choosing the current date as the word-of-the-day, the etymologist was, in fact, implying the word TODAY, the concept of the ever-present, the current moment, the now. But the word is actually CALUMET—a word stolen by the English from the French to brand upon the Native Americans. It means "peace pipe." Pipes were carefully and artfully crafted, an act to complement the religious ceremony of tobacco smoking among Native Americans. The pipes are often adorned with elements significant to the owner—feathers, beads, human or animal hair. Smoke from the CALUMETS is believed to carry prayers to the creator. There are nine CALUMET towns or cities in the United States. CALUMET City, Illinois, was the birthplace of CALUMET Baking Powder Company (1889-1929 [General Foods buyout]). This brand featured an image of a Native American silhouette on their packaging. CALUMET containers appear in the pantry storage scenes in Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. Some read this as a symbol supporting the reading of the film that suggests it is a commentary on the Native American genocide. The inclusion is certainly thoughtful on Kubrick's part—we do know the Overlook is built on a Native burial ground. The CALUMET is, at the least, a clever irony. |
Friday, November 26, 2010
frenetic
Thursday, November 25, 2010
risible
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
to quoque
In many cases tu quoque arguments are used in a logically fallacious way, to draw a conclusion which is not supported by the premises of the argument.
You-too version
This form of the argument is as follows:
- A makes criticism P.
- A is also guilty of P.
- Therefore, P is dismissed.
This is an instance of the two wrongs make a right fallacy.
Example:
- "He cannot accuse me of libel because he was just successfully sued for libel."
Inconsistency version
This form of the argument is as follows:
- A makes claim P.
- A has also made claims which are inconsistent with P.
- Therefore, P is false.
This is a logical fallacy because the conclusion that P is false does not follow from the premises; even if A has made past claims which are inconsistent with P, it does not necessarily prove that P is either true or false.
Example:
Legitimate Uses—
Not all uses of tu quoque arguments involve logical fallacy. They can be properly used to bring about awareness of inconsistency, to indirectly repeal a criticism by narrowing its scope or challenging its criteria, or to call into question the credibility of a source of knowledge.
You-too version
A legitimate use of the you-too version might be:
- A makes criticism P.
- A is also guilty of P.
- Therefore, the criticism is confusing because it does not reflect A's actual values or beliefs.
Another legitimate use of this version asserts:
- A makes criticism of P for Q.
- A is also guilty of Q.
- Therefore, the criticism is confusing because it does not reflect A's beliefs.
Example:
- Version 1: "You say that taking a human life is wrong under all circumstances, but support killing in self-defense; you are either being inconsistent, or you believe that under some circumstances taking a human life is justified."
- Version 2: "You claim to believe that taking a human life is always wrong, and you criticize John for it. Contradictory to this, you also support killing in self-defense. You are a hypocrite and are inconsistent in your criticisms."
Note the difference between this legitimate usage and the fallacious one: in the latter, we attempt to use A's hypocrisy to prove that criticism P is false. This is illogical, since the truth value of a claim does not depend on the speaker. In the former, we are showing that A does not make a good critic, therefore arguing for greater skepticism toward his/her claims.
Inconsistency version
A legitimate use of the inconsistency version might be:
- A makes claim P.
- A has also made claims which are inconsistent with P.
- Therefore, A is an inconsistent source of information.
- Inconsistent sources of information are untrustworthy.
- Therefore, A is an untrustworthy source of information.
Example:
"John Smith told the police he was at home alone on Friday night, but later said he was with friends at a bar; we can't take what he says about the crime at face value since he lied about his alibi."
*
Wow. There's your reading for the day. Take a break. Stretch. Open a new window and check your Facebook.
I'm kidding.
It's important to understand the algebraic essence of linguistics.