Language and thought
A variety of different authors, theories and fields purport influences between language and thought. Many point out the seemingly common-sense realization that upon introspection we seem to think in the language we speak. A number of writers and theorists have extrapolated upon this idea. Scientific hypotheses[edit] Examples[edit] Counting[edit] Different cultures use numbers in different ways. Perhaps the most different counting system from that of modern Western civilisation is the “one-two-many” system used by the Pirahã people. Orientation[edit] Color[edit] Language may influence color processing. Other schools of thought[edit] See also[edit] References[edit] Jump up ^ Gordon, P., (2004).
Naturalistic fallacy
In philosophical ethics, the term "naturalistic fallacy" was introduced by British philosopher G. E. Moore in his 1903 book Principia Ethica.[1] Moore argues it would be fallacious to explain that which is good reductively in terms of natural properties such as "pleasant" or "desirable". The naturalistic fallacy is closely related to the fallacious appeal to nature, the claim that what is natural is inherently good or right, and that what is unnatural is inherently bad or wrong. Furthermore, Moore's naturalistic fallacy is closely related to the is–ought problem, which comes from Hume's Treatise. However, unlike Hume's view of the is–ought problem, Moore (and other proponents of ethical non-naturalism) did not consider the naturalistic fallacy to be at odds with moral realism. Different common uses[edit] The is–ought problem[edit] The term "naturalistic fallacy" is sometimes used to describe the deduction of an "ought" from an "is" (the Is–ought problem). Moore's discussion[edit] Notes[edit]
Origin of language
The origin of language in the human species has been the topic of scholarly discussions for several centuries. In spite of this, there is no consensus on the ultimate origin or age of human language. One problem makes the topic difficult to study: the lack of direct evidence. Consequently, scholars wishing to study the origins of language must draw inferences from other kinds of evidence such as the fossil record or from archaeological evidence, from contemporary language diversity, from studies of language acquisition, and from comparisons between human language and systems of communication existing among other animals, particularly other primates. It is generally agreed[by whom?] This shortage of empirical evidence has led many scholars to regard the entire topic as unsuitable for serious study. Approaches[edit] Approaches to the origin of language can be divided according to their underlying assumptions. Noam Chomsky is a prominent proponent of discontinuity theory. Bow-wow.
Wisdom of repugnance
Origin and usage[edit] The term "wisdom of repugnance" was coined in 1997 by Leon Kass, chairman (2001–2005) of the President's Council on Bioethics, in an article in The New Republic,[3] which was later expanded into a further (2001) article in the same magazine,[4] and also incorporated into his 2002 book Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity.[5] Kass stated that disgust was not an argument per se, but went on to say that "in crucial cases...repugnance is the emotional expression of deep wisdom, beyond reason's power fully to articulate it." The term remains largely confined to discussions of bioethics, and is somewhat related to the term "yuck factor". However, unlike the latter, it is used almost exclusively by those who accept its underlying premise; i.e., that repugnance does, in fact, indicate wisdom. Criticism[edit] Martha Nussbaum explicitly opposes the concept of a disgust-based morality. See also[edit] References[edit]
Outline of thought
Nature of thought[edit] Thought (or thinking) can be described as all of the following: An activity taking place in a: brain – organ that serves as the center of the nervous system in all vertebrate and most invertebrate animals (only a few invertebrates such as sponges, jellyfish, adult sea squirts and starfish do not have a brain). It is the physical structure associated with the mind. mind – abstract entity with the cognitive faculties of consciousness, perception, thinking, judgement, and memory. Types of thoughts[edit] Types of thought (thinking)[edit] Listed below are types of thought, also known as thinking processes. Animal thought[edit] See Animal cognition Human thought[edit] Human thought Classifications of thought[edit] Williams' Taxonomy Creative processes[edit] Creative processes – Decision-making[edit] Decision-making Erroneous thinking[edit] see Error for some examples, see also Human error) Emotional intelligence (emotionally-based thinking)[edit] Emotional intelligence – Problem solving
Fallacy
A fallacy is the use of poor, or invalid, reasoning for the construction of an argument.[1][2] A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is. Some fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception, while others are committed unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance. Fallacies are commonly divided into "formal" and "informal". Formal fallacy[edit] Main article: Formal fallacy A formal fallacy is a common error of thinking that can neatly be expressed in standard system of logic.[1] An argument that is formally fallacious is rendered invalid due to a flaw in its logical structure. The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion. Common examples[edit] Aristotle's Fallacies[edit] Aristotle was the first to systematize logical errors into a list. Whately's grouping of fallacies[edit] Intentional fallacies[edit] Deductive fallacy[edit]
List of thought processes
Nature of thought[edit] Thought (or thinking) can be described as all of the following: An activity taking place in a: brain – organ that serves as the center of the nervous system in all vertebrate and most invertebrate animals (only a few invertebrates such as sponges, jellyfish, adult sea squirts and starfish do not have a brain). Types of thoughts[edit] Content of thoughts[edit] Types of thought (thinking)[edit] Listed below are types of thought, also known as thinking processes. Animal thought[edit] See Animal cognition Human thought[edit] Human thought Classifications of thought[edit] Williams' Taxonomy Creative processes[edit] Creative processes – Decision-making[edit] Decision-making Erroneous thinking[edit] see Error for some examples, see also Human error) Emotional intelligence (emotionally based thinking)[edit] Emotional intelligence – Problem solving[edit] Problem solving Reasoning[edit] Reasoning – Machine thought[edit] Machine thought (outline) Organizational thought[edit] Organizations[edit] Lists
OkTrends
List of cognitive biases
Systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of deviation from norm and/or rationality in judgment. They are often studied in psychology, sociology and behavioral economics.[1] Although the reality of most of these biases is confirmed by reproducible research,[2][3] there are often controversies about how to classify these biases or how to explain them.[4] Several theoretical causes are known for some cognitive biases, which provides a classification of biases by their common generative mechanism (such as noisy information-processing[5]). Gerd Gigerenzer has criticized the framing of cognitive biases as errors in judgment, and favors interpreting them as arising from rational deviations from logical thought.[6] Explanations include information-processing rules (i.e., mental shortcuts), called heuristics, that the brain uses to produce decisions or judgments. Belief, decision-making and behavioral[edit] Anchoring bias[edit]
