Tu quoque. Tu quoque /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/,[1] (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an argument that intends to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position. It attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This attempts to dismiss opponent's position based on criticism of the opponent's inconsistency and not the position presented.[2] It is a special case of ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of fact about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[3] To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, such behavior does not invalidate the position presented. See also[edit] References[edit] Framing device. A frame story (also frame tale, frame narrative, etc.) is a literary technique that sometimes serves as a companion piece to a story within a story, whereby an introductory or main narrative is presented, at least in part, for the purpose of setting the stage either for a more emphasized second narrative or for a set of shorter stories.
The frame story leads readers from a first story into another, smaller one (or several ones) within it. Origins[edit] Among earliest known frame stories are those preserved on the ancient Egyptian Papyrus Westcar. The use of a frame story in which a single narrative is set in the context of the telling of a story is also a technique with a long history, dating back at least to the beginning section of the Odyssey, in which the narrator Odysseus tells of his wandering in the court of King Alcinous. A set of stories[edit] Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein is another good example of a book with multiple framed narratives. Single story[edit] Notes[edit] Contextualism. This article is about epistemological and ethical contextualism. For information about semantic contextualism, see Context principle. Contextualism describes a collection of views in philosophy which emphasize the context in which an action, utterance, or expression occurs, and argues that, in some important respect, the action, utterance, or expression can only be understood relative to that context.[1] Contextualist views hold that philosophically controversial concepts, such as "meaning ", "knowing that ", "having a reason to ", and possibly even "being true" or "being right" only have meaning relative to a specified context.
Some philosophers[2] hold that context-dependence may lead to relativism;[3] nevertheless, contextualist views are increasingly popular within philosophy.[4] In ethics, "contextualist" views are often closely associated with situational ethics, or with moral relativism.[5] Epistemology[edit] Introduction[edit] Criticisms[edit] Experimental research[edit] [edit] Argument from ignorance. Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).
This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[2] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof. Overview[edit] Basic argument[edit] Such arguments attempt to exploit the facts that (a) true things can never be disproven and (b) false things can never be proven. List of fallacies.
A fallacy is incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness. Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies. Formal fallacies[edit] Main article: Formal fallacy Appeal to probability – is a statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case).[2][3]Argument from fallacy – assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion is false.Base rate fallacy – making a probability judgment based on conditional probabilities, without taking into account the effect of prior probabilities.[5]Conjunction fallacy – assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.[6]Masked man fallacy (illicit substitution of identicals) – the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.
Propositional fallacies[edit] 3re8ll.jpg (250×200) Joaquin Phoenix Says Goodbye To Oscar Chances, Calls Awards "Total Utter Bullshit" Nearly everyone who has seen Paul Thomas Anderson's "The Master" agrees that the performances by its two leads, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix, and co-star Amy Adams, are Oscar-caliber turns.
Given rich, complex characters to dive into, in a world unlike anything we've really seen on the big screen, the trio really deliver some special moments in the film. But let's be frank, Oscars are as much of a political campaign as the race for the White House, and if you aren't willing to play ball, you won't be invited to the Dolby Theater. Yes, there are exceptions, but that's the basic rule of thumb. And one man who has already been absent for most of the press tour for "The Master," has essentially written himself out of the Oscar race as well. In a pretty fantastic conversation with Elvis Mitchell at Interview, Phoenix explains why he's not participating in the awards circuit gauntlet. "I'm just saying that I think it's bullshit.