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]
Reasoning Errors In The Current Models of Human Cognition Yehouda Harpaz yh@maldoo.com 6 Jan 96 [last updated 22 Mar 2012] related texts 1. Introduction [1.1] Cognitive Psychologists (CogPsys) and researchers in related areas hypothesize many models of the way the human cognition, or part of it, works. Since we cannot, yet, test these models directly, their validation is based on interpretation of experimental evidence. [1.2] In this text I try to list the most important reasoning errors that occur in the arguments which are used to support models of human cognition. [1.3] In most of the cases, each error is harmless on its own, but in combination with other errors can lead to serious mistakes in the interpretation. More fundamental problems in cognitive science (including the idea of consciousness) are discussed in the methodological points. 2. [2.2] This is an error because it can be used to support a conclusion which is not supported by any sound argument, and to support unsound arguments. 3. [3.2] Evidence about memory and perception
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]
10 More Common Faults in Human Thought Humans This list is a follow up to Top 10 Common Faults in Human Thought. Thanks for everyone’s comments and feedback; you have inspired this second list! It is amazing that with all these biases, people are able to actually have a rational thought every now and then. There is no end to the mistakes we make when we process information, so here are 10 more common errors to be aware of. The confirmation bias is the tendency to look for or interpret information in a way that confirms beliefs. The Availability heuristic is gauging what is more likely based on vivid memories. Illusion of Control is the tendency for individuals to believe they can control or at least influence outcomes that they clearly have no influence on. Interesting Fact: when playing craps in a casino, people will throw the dice hard when they need a high number and soft when they need a low number. The Planning fallacy is the tendency to underestimate the time needed to complete tasks. Bonus Attribute Substitution
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]
The Illusion of Asymmetric Insight The Misconception: You celebrate diversity and respect others’ points of view. The Truth: You are driven to create and form groups and then believe others are wrong just because they are others. Source: “Lord of the Flies,” 1963, Two Arts Ltd. In 1954, in eastern Oklahoma, two tribes of children nearly killed each other. The neighboring tribes were unaware of each other’s existence. Scientists stood by, watchful, scribbling notes and whispering. These two tribes consisted of 22 boys, ages 11 and 12, whom psychologist Muzafer Sherif brought together at Oklahoma’s Robber’s Cave State Park. He was right, but as those cultures formed and met something sinister presented itself. Sherif and his colleagues pretended to be staff members at the camp so they could record, without interfering, the natural human drive to form tribes. Soon, the two groups began to suspect they weren’t alone. From the study, the boys face each other for the first time Source: “The Breakfast Club,” 1985, Universal