Ethos, pathos, and logos, people. The tripartite principles of argumentation.
If you want to be a politician, otherwise not so much.
Ethos, pathos, and logos, people. The tripartite principles of argumentation.
[MENTION=5684]Elfboy[/MENTION]
Ah yes, source checking. Citing credible information. Boon and bane, that is.
Argument structure is independent but without vetting sources, it is useless. Yet, eventually you have to take somebody's word for it because sources often come in a chain where we end up checking many levels of sources.
Like if someone cites their data as coming from Bob Bobingston' Bobber experiment in 1983, you've got nothing new unless you also check Bob Bobingston's experiment, so you go check that and see that Bob Bobingston cites 10 other sources which all hinge around his experiment, at which point you have a mess on your hands because if all 10 of his sources have 10 of their own sources you end up with a geometric progression which is always 'fun'.
If you want to be a politician, otherwise not so much.
If you want to be a politician, otherwise not so much.
Nop you see. Cult leaders as many politicians, tend to skim on their logos. Well, they don't, until they get an awkward question while on the stand. Before such an event they are more than happy to use logos as well. The dirty whore of an issue in this subject is that the mob don't really care that much about the facts. One have to admire and weep over how eloquent our hierarchy is established. The ones that sound convincing and bow down to pat babies on their head tend to get the vote.If you want to have a conclusion, otherwise not so much.
Yeah, you misunderstood everything that I previously stated. Impressive.If we don't want conclusions, why argue? Social contact? I can think of better ways to make social contact.
I'm curious to what made you jump at that so quickly. You see, in this spectrum there are no sides. You do have your imaginative castle pretty much locked down with the motion of your hand, grtz.Wrong. They form a part of any argument that is not mathematical. To think otherwise is to leave one's self open to deception.
I'm curious to what made you jump at that so quickly. You see, in this spectrum there are no sides. You do have your imaginative castle pretty much locked down with the motion of your hand, grtz.
You on sum drugs, girl?
Trendy.
Yes this is true. It still means that all three are important, even if only to know when to disregard certain ones.Nop you see. Cult leaders as many politicians, tend to skim on their logos. Well, they don't, until they get an awkward question while on the stand. Before such an event they are more than happy to use logos as well. The dirty whore of an issue in this subject is that the mob don't really care that much about the facts. One have to admire and weep over how eloquent our hierarchy is established. The ones that sound convincing and bow down to pat babies on their head tend to get the vote.
I understood quite well what you said. I just didn't quite agree with it.Yeah, you misunderstood everything that I previously stated. Impressive.
Yes of course, but that was not what I was evaluating. I just find it sad that the people in power have to assume the role of the pop media in order to act as such.If only logos matters then you will always evaluate the logos and disregard the other two. If you evaluate the other two negatively, then you are still evaluating them.
Yes of course, but that was not what I was evaluating. I just find it sad that the people in power have to assume the role of the pop media in order to act as such.
That's a good example of the sinking boat we're all sitting in.Most people can't switch off innate attractions which go beyond higher levels of reasoning.
That's a good example of the sinking boat we're all sitting in.
As long as the orchestra plays on the borderline panicking people will remain as that, borderline panicking.
Yeah. I wonder what would happen if we stripped out ethos and pathos from selecting political candidates. You wouldn't get to look at their credibility, you wouldn't even get to hear their voice or see their face. All you would get are facts that are entirely consistent and true. First of all I think very few people would run in that case. Secondly, I wouldn't be surprised if we vote for someone and it turns out that they are a genius teenager, or a robot, or something else that would never be elected if we weren't only going by logos.
For me the argument is paramount.
It is for that same reason I consider many of the wisdoms written about by the many religions on this planet and add them as my own. Without sharing belief in the religion.
Yeah. Problem is that any argument can be sound on its surface with presumed truths.
Such as, if I were to argue that ducks which lay golden eggs would impact the value of gold, I'd probably be right - assuming that there actually are ducks that lay golden eggs.
It's very easy to presume the 'duck' in someone else's argument if you don't have experience, which makes the argument appear to be truthful but in actuality it may not be, because of something in the premise is missed that doesn't actually apply to the real world.
On the other hand, if you're ever to come to a conclusion, you have to draw the line somewhere, give the unknown the benefit of the doubt, and determine what you're willing to risk in dismissing a statement as false or accepting it as true.