Sophisme Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre. Un sophisme est une argumentation à la logique fallacieuse. C'est un raisonnement qui cherche à paraître rigoureux mais qui n'est en réalité pas valide au sens de la logique (quand bien même sa conclusion serait pourtant la « vraie »). À l'inverse du paralogisme, qui est une erreur dans un raisonnement, le sophisme est fallacieux : il est prononcé avec l'intention de tromper l'auditoire afin, par exemple, de prendre l'avantage dans une discussion. Souvent, les sophismes prennent l'apparence d'un syllogisme (qui repose sur des prémisses insuffisantes ou non-pertinentes ou qui procède par enthymème, etc.). Ils peuvent aussi s'appuyer sur d'autres mécanismes psychologiques jouant par exemple avec l'émotion de l'auditoire, l'ascendant social du locuteur (argument d'autorité) ou des biais cognitifs (comme l'oubli de la fréquence de base). Origines du mot[modifier | modifier le code] Exemples[modifier | modifier le code] Le ridicule ne tue pas,
List of common misconceptions From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Each entry on this list of common misconceptions is worded as a correction; the misconceptions themselves are implied rather than stated. These entries are concise summaries; the main subject articles can be consulted for more detail. A common misconception is a viewpoint or factoid that is often accepted as true but which is actually false. They generally arise from conventional wisdom (such as old wives' tales), stereotypes, superstitions, fallacies, a misunderstanding of science, or the popularization of pseudoscience. Arts and culture[edit] Business[edit] Federal legal tender laws in the United States do not require that private businesses, persons, or organizations accept cash for payment, though it must be treated as valid payment for debts when tendered to a creditor.[1] Food and cooking[edit] Food and drink history[edit] Microwave ovens[edit] Film and television[edit] Language[edit] English language[edit] Law, crime, and military[edit] Literature[edit]
Manipulation News, Videos, Reviews and Gossip - Lifehacker On some level I think you're right. In order for a golddigger to be sucessful nine times out of ten she finds a man who knows exactly what she's after and is equally shallow and okay with it. You can't fake being in love with someone for more than a few months unless you're a sociopath. In face, most golddiggers these days use dating sites set up for wealthy men who are specifically looking for a golddigger either because they want a trophy wife or they work such long hours they can't put in enough effort for a legitimate relationship. I know how these things work; I've worked with a lot of "model/actress" types who play this game. And if the man in this relationship really believes the gold digger is into him and not just with him for his money, do your feelings on the situation remain the same? Since rich = smart, there's no chance of him being deceived. Go free market!
Teaching and Promoting Logical & Critical Thinking 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]
Disinformation Disinformation is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false. Unlike traditional propaganda techniques designed to engage emotional support, disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions. A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole (a limited hangout). Another technique of concealing facts, or censorship, is also used if the group can affect such control. Examples[edit] In espionage or military intelligence, disinformation is the deliberate spreading of false information to mislead an enemy as to one's position or course of action. Napoleonic wars[edit]
8 Ways to be UBER Charismatic What did JFK, Marilyn Monroe and Hitler all have in common? They were all renowned charismatics that lit up every room they entered. You’ve most likely met one of these kinds before. The guy/girl at the party. Robert Greene studied these people and detailed the methods one can use to become a charismatic in his book “The Art of Seduction.” Purpose Pick a cause, a goal, a vision and live it. Mystery Become mysterious (like Bruce Wayne) by being unpredictable. Saintliness Think Gandhi. Eloquence Speak slowly and hypnotically, with random pauses if needed. Theatricality Be larger than life. Danger/Spontaneity Radiate dangerous, rebellious sexuality. Vulnerability Have a soft side and love your followers. Magnetism Develop a piercing gaze. DO NOT COMMENT.
SCHOPENHAUER'S 38 STRATAGEMS, OR 38 WAYS TO WIN AN ARGUMENT Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), was a brilliant German philosopher. These 38 Stratagems are excerpts from "The Art of Controversy", first translated into English and published in 1896. Carry your opponent's proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it. (abstracted from the book:Numerical Lists You Never Knew or Once Knew and Probably Forget, by: John Boswell and Dan Starer) Misinformation Misinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread unintentionally. It is distinguished from disinformation, which is intended to mislead.[1] When comparing misinformation to disinformation, Jürgen Habermas says that the motives play an active role in the effect the information has. Misinformation may have a less devastating effect in that readers can criticize what they have read and evaluate it as truth or fiction. Authors will also have to give reasoning for their beliefs and support their statements with facts.[2] Sources[edit] In an age of technological advances, social networking sites are becoming more and more popular. Identification[edit] According to Anne Mintz, editor of Web of Deception: Misinformation on the Internet, the best ways to find if information is factual is to use common sense. Examples[edit] Social media sites have allowed citizens to spread false information about any topic they find. Causes[edit] Misinformation is spread for numerous reasons.
Meisner technique The Meisner technique is an acting technique developed by the American theatre practitioner Sanford Meisner.[1] Components[edit] Meisner Training is an interdependent series of training exercises that build on one another. List of Meisner-trained actors[edit] Prominent actors who trained at The Neighborhood Playhouse or elsewhere in the Meisner technique include:[2] See also[edit] List of acting techniques References[edit] Sources[edit] Banham, Martin, ed. 1998. External links[edit] The Art of Being Right The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831) (Eristische Dialektik: Die Kunst, Recht zu Behalten) is an acidulous and sarcastic treatise written by the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer in sarcastic deadpan.[1] In it, Schopenhauer examines a total of thirty-eight methods of showing up one's opponent in a debate. He introduces his essay with the idea that philosophers have concentrated in ample measure on the rules of logic, but have not (especially since the time of Immanuel Kant) engaged with the darker art of the dialectic, of controversy. Whereas the purpose of logic is classically said to be a method of arriving at the truth, dialectic, says Schopenhauer, "...on the other hand, would treat of the intercourse between two rational beings who, because they are rational, ought to think in common, but who, as soon as they cease to agree like two clocks keeping exactly the same time, create a disputation, or intellectual contest." Publication[edit] A. Synopsis[edit]
Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus by Dan Kahan, Hank Jenkins-Smith, Donald Braman Dan M. Kahan Yale University - Law School; Harvard University - Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics Hank Jenkins-Smith University of Oklahoma Donald Braman George Washington University - Law School; Cultural Cognition ProjectFebruary 7, 2010 Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 14, pp. 147-74, 2011 Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 205 Abstract: Why do members of the public disagree - sharply and persistently - about facts on which expert scientists largely agree? Number of Pages in PDF File: 40 Keywords: Cultural Cognition, Climate Change, Gun Control, Nuclear Power, Risk, Public Opinion working papers series Suggested Citation Kahan, Dan M. and Jenkins-Smith, Hank and Braman, Donald, Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus (February 7, 2010).
Easily embarrassed? Study finds people will trust you more If tripping in public or mistaking an overweight woman for a mother-to-be leaves you red-faced, don’t feel bad. A new study from the University of California, Berkeley, suggests that people who are easily embarrassed are also more trustworthy, and more generous. In short, embarrassment can be a good thing. Psychologist Dacher Keltner, a coauthor of the study, demonstrates a typical gesture of embarrassment “Embarrassment is one emotional signature of a person to whom you can entrust valuable resources. It’s part of the social glue that fosters trust and cooperation in everyday life,” said UC Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer, a coauthor of the study published in this month’s online issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Not only are the UC Berkeley findings useful for people seeking cooperative and reliable team members and business partners, but they also make for helpful dating advice.