 |
| |
|
|
Logical Realist
|
|
California
Jan 2002
time: 21:18
|
|
To examine whether or not one can make generalizations (and be accurate) I looked up the word generalization.
Dictionary.com: quote:
gen·er·al·i·za·tion Pronunciation Key (jnr--l-zshn)
n.
1. The act or an instance of generalizing.
2. A principle, statement, or idea having general application. |
The first definition leads back to the word general so I looked that up:
quote:
gen·er·al·ize Pronunciation Key (jnr--lz)
v. gen·er·al·ized, gen·er·al·iz·ing, gen·er·al·iz·es
v. tr.
1.
1. To reduce to a general form, class, or law.
2. To render indefinite or unspecific.
2.
1. To infer from many particulars.
2. To draw inferences or a general conclusion from.
3.
1. To make generally or universally applicable.
2. To popularize. |
So I looked up the word general:
quote:
gen·er·al Pronunciation Key (jnr-l)
adj.
1. Concerned with, applicable to, or affecting the whole or every member of a class or category: ?subduing all her impressions as a woman, to something more general? (Virginia Woolf).
2. Affecting or characteristic of the majority of those involved; prevalent: general discontent.
3. Of or affecting the entire body: general paralysis.
4. Being usually the case; true or applicable in most instances but not all: the general correctness of her decisions.
5.
1. Not limited in scope, area, or application: as a general rule.
2. Not limited to or dealing with one class of things; diversified: general studies.
6. Involving only the main features rather than precise details: a general grasp of the subject.
7. Highest or superior in rank: the general manager. |
This means generalizations can be accurate in two ways:
1)Talking about a whole or class which are established via definitions.
2) The rule tends to hold true. Usually in different times and respects. Meaning if it holds true 51 percent of the time....the generalizations is accurate.
The second is obviously what is to be expected in the vasy majority of cases involving human nature and society. This means that monorities and exceptions might exist but do not in any way refute the geralization. As it deals with what holds true usually.In most cases...not all.
Now fallacies of course can be committed the two main being one about making a generalization too quickly and its reverse.
Critical Thinking fourth edition:
quote:
To base a generalization (or conclusion of an analogical argument) on a sample that is too small is to commit the fallacy of hasty generalization. |
Thus to say "gays are pedophiles" on the basis of two homosexuals who might have dated under age boys is a hasty generalization.
Likewise the reverse is fallacious too:
quote:
Sometimes we ask someone to reject a general claim on the basis of an example or two that run counter to the claim. When we do this, we commit the fallacy known as refutation via hasty generalization. And it doesn't matter whether or not the refutation is based on an anectdote(personal experience); As long as it is a refutation based on a sample that's too small, it counts as this fallacy. |
Hence saying Christians cannot generally have a bad effect on things because I have met a real nice one is fallacious reasoning. To say that one cannot generalize religious text because someone's "interpretation" might be an exception is fallacious.
Hence generalizations can be made rationally and hastily; refuted by sound arguments and fallacious ones.
In the end though generalizations will be made and are made every day. Most reasoning is based on induction and inductions never lead to absolute certainty. Science,sociology,history and even politics would not work without generalizations. How does anyone know absolutely the sun will rise tomorrow? Or that you will not be poisoned by your next bowel of cereal? Nobody with absolute certainty. But we continue to expect a sun rise and eat our cereal on the basis of past experience and the generalizations we draw from them
Nobody knows for sure that all humans are mortal...perhaps I am or you are the first immortal. Perhaps all immortals are hiding or uknown. Nobody has looked at everyone's lives nor can they predict everyone's future. Notheless, though we tend to believe that people will be mortal on the basis of past experience.
Hence generalizations are prevalent everywhere but are cetrainly not all equal. They form the basis for most of science and are used in most cases of inductive thought.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:18
|
|
No offense, but that sounds like double-speak.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
Oh, for the love of holy blue f***, will you please knock it off? As DD said, this whole semantic dictionary definition thing is getting tiresome at best, monumentally obnoxious at worst.
I said it once, and I'll say it again. I am an atheist. And generalizing that religious believers are bad/ignorant/evil/uneducated/what-have-you is complete and utter bullshit. Take your trolling elsewhere.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
devilmunchkin
|
|
first circle of the inferno
Jul 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
1) The recent trend of using the dictionary as most of the text in your posts is starting to become annoying. |
you think he'll listen to you if you call him names? that you people on here do that is annoying in itself.
quote:
People come to this site to relax, wind down, have fun. |
ugh try again. that is ffz and cg. other threads here bely that statement..such at your technical computer threads, polical threads...and there have been other xian threads discussing theology. we've also had formal debates.
guynemer: you're just down right rude. i'd assume you wouldn't take kindly to someone having the same attitiude with you. floyd..you too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
devilmunchkin
|
|
first circle of the inferno
Jul 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
we had two debate threads go pretty far. i was involved in one.
also, if ou and guynemer had bothered to read, you'd realize this thread isn't even ABOUT xianity. not everyone on the board posts the same old complaining tripe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Logical Realist
|
|
California
Jan 2002
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
DinoDoc: 1) The recent trend of using the dictionary as most of the text in your posts is starting to become annoying.
2) It might help your point if you actually said why you feel that Christians are the scum of the Earth as opposed to defending your right to such a generalization.
|
1) I'm just defining the word. So that we can use an established definition and avoid confusion. To avoid having to deal with a straw man "generalizations must apply to all or none" argument.
2) This post isn't about Christianity. But generalizations. That;s not based on feeling but deduction.
Urban Ranger: good point. There are also biased samples and anectdotal evidence. I'm not debating on Christianity and its effects here but generalization as such. My Christian examples were just examples. Hypotheticals.
Guynemer: That is a rather dogmatic attidtude and a bit of a red herring. The topic of this thread is not religion but generalization. To say all who disagree with you are "uneducated" is dogmatic. And fallacious "ad hominded". You should refute my points on this thread and not criticize my examples.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Logical Realist
|
|
California
Jan 2002
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
se·man·tics Pronunciation Key (s-mntks)
n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
1. Linguistics. The study or science of meaning in language.
2. Linguistics. The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent. Also called semasiology.
3. The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form:
|
All debates involve a fair amount of semantics. That refutation is meaningless. If you think an argument can be ignored just because it uses "semantics" show me the source for that.
Notice how your refutation itself was based on semantics.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
devilmunchkin
|
|
first circle of the inferno
Jul 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
I never said it was about christianity. |
i never said you did. i said guynemer.
and asher: if you don't like it, don't ruin it for the rest of us who might LIKE this sort of debate. thanks.
i think alot of you are to quick to judge him......you assume too much. you complain abou tthe length but then assume that he posts about the same thing every time. come on people..that isn't hospitable.......you're making a BAD impression......i'm almost embarrased by your attitudes in a place where i was once enthralled.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Logical Realist
|
|
California
Jan 2002
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
I take it you never read LR's Arguing with the dictionary thread which was written in the same annoying train of thought?
|
That "annoying train of thought" is called logic. It only annoys the illogical and closed minded.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Logical Realist
|
|
California
Jan 2002
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
If your friend had any other motive other than trolling (here) or flaming (FFZ) he may have had a warmer welcome.
|
Trolling is when you do anything for attention.I am trying to make a serious point about a serious subject. How is this trolling? And what does ffz have to do with this paticular discussion?
Your like or dislike of me does not effect the truth-value of my argument.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
devilmunchkin
|
|
first circle of the inferno
Jul 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
i agree with some of what you said. but i msut say:
how is one to go about discerning between hasty generalizations and on target ones?
SOMe groups, no matter how you look at the data, aresimply to large to be throw into a big category. There are too many sub groups within extremely large groups. I wouldn't think it would be easier to perhaps generalize a group that is limited in size and to a specific geographic location. But some of your generalizations haven't been limited to those categories...but rather to the opposite: enormous groups that have many subdivisions spanning the globe.
might we be able to generalize serial killers in america? possibly. but world wide? i think there might be enough environmental differences between them to incur a difference in the serial killing patterns or in mental patterns.
also, at what point do you say that certain definitions of semantics are self evident?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-03-2002 09:08
I agree one hundred percent...It seems thier world is the only world...limited as it is.
|