Fallacies of reasoning, that are untenable, and malevolent when penal, in many respects.
Some hundred fallacies are coming soon.
The Notorious fallacy of ambiguity.
Independence, Impartiality, and their accountabilities.
How to determine if a person, body or organisation is independent or impartial WITHOUT
being told they are by themselves, friends, associates, and agents.
Look at the Venn diagrams and ask several simple questions, then examine your own
terms of contract or employment and examine what you would do. Once you've done that,
compare how you would react, with the reactions of the person or body you are determining
for yourself, if what they say about themselves is likely to be true or false. A
short sequence of very easy steps.
The easy read below..
The advance read, page down below the pictures, but skim the easy read first..
1. Look at the definition of the word in focus, take 'independent', the most notorious
of the fallacies of ambiguity.
a) Here is one from the OED, the definitive dictionary for the English language.
b) 4.(a) “Not dependent on any one else for one's living;”
• The remaining meanings are at footnote 1 for the enthusiast.
2. Ask the simple question on motivation. Is that person or body reliant on some
or all of its income from someone else or self sufficient NOT needing anyone's payments?
a) Income is also one of the most important sources of influence in motivating the
affection or partiality of behaviour towards its sources.
b) If the answer is:
• does the body depends for some or all of its income from elsewhere than it's own
• The the answer couldn't be clearer, YES, the body or person is dependent, or
• NOT independent, same thing!
c) If the answer is the body does NOT depend for any or part of its income from
elsewhere than it's own resources.
• The answer couldn't be clearer, NO, the body or person is independent, or
• NOT dependent, same thing!
b) You are now in a position to place a TICK in the correct circle, rectangle, domain
or frame of reference.
c) Independent tick the yellow circle, NOT independent tick the grey rectangle.
2. That was surely easy.
How to determine how a person, body or organisation is likely to behave if they are
dependent or partial.
This focus, for reasons of brevity, excludes areas of unambiguous contextual inferencing,
design and purpose, and conduct in behaviour relevant to agendas.
Simple steps again.
1. IF you are dependant on your income from one or several sources, are you careful
how you treat the person responsible for controlling that flow of income or not?
IS your job under threat when showing honesty with disloyalty?
a) If your boss, for example is very kind and understanding, invariably inviting
you to criticise his conduct, very rare, are you likely to tell him any grievances,
or not. Even where the code of conduct protects you and suggests or invites you to
pursue that course.
b) If your boss, for example is NOT very kind and understating, invariably putting
people under threat of losing their positions if they criticise, are you likely to
tell him any grievances, or not.
c) Assuming in all probability the mix of both above, you are likely to be careful
if invited to criticise, and certain very very careful to avoid criticising where
punishment may be forthcoming for speaking above your position.
2. If you are an independent adjudicator, I have yet to meet one who is in need,
employed or self employed, and altruistic, for example, one who says he is independent
but knows his income comes from a council distributing its penal powers and paying
him for his judgement, are you likely to be circumspect or careless towards that
penal body in dismissing appeals against them?
a) Let's examine the full course of consequence if you do ensure no injustice takes
place, where the body consistently delivers injustice because it has targets set
because the tax system is engineered to not tax uniformly, but stealth tax so that
it can maintain it never raises income tax. Directing you to think that is true while
taxing through the back door.
b) Suppose most or all of the penalties issued by the bodies you work for, and get
paid by, came to you, and you were faced with upholding those appeals against the
interest of the body that employs you.
c) Are you likely to find that the consequence is that you 'bite the hand that feeds
you' and avoid that course of action, or press on until the body itself can't employ
you any more because you are being just too just.
d) I think you have figured this easy one out already. Now you know how the body
you are looking at, will show, or hide his partiality towards the persons that employ
him or her.
3. If that was easy, and you have no questions or problems then the examination
is done. If you are concerned about the reasoning employed here, then go to the harder
section for the enthusiast and read that if you wish. That section is after the Venn
diagrams. The advanced section of the same.
The next step of course, having made a determination of dependence or partiality,
4. Accountability as well as account ability. The second or third of the notorious
a) It's important to remember the ambiguity arises when the qualifying adjective
or adverb is dropped from the description, and this is done frequently in order to
blur the edge of boundaries in the genus (and differentia) of the term being used.
IE; recall independent, nobody cares to qualify it as social, political, religious,
or financial independence. That term is left loose deliberately to play on the key
associative complexes below consciousness to activate generality, and extenuate what
had to have been qualified by the terms such as Financial, in dependence. Leaving
it loose helps activate the feeling and re-assurance that all is well until you approach
b) Where it is determined that a person or body is dependent on its income from
one or more sources that are not its own, then the accountability will follow the
paths of income, in accord with a principle of truth and its semblance, namely where
truth follows the will that it lives by.
c) The admixture of the two has serious consequences for reason and reason ability
as well as of course justice. Take for example the a quasi judicial body such as
the Local Government Ombudsman, now renamed Public Service Ombudsman, Police Complaints
Authority, now Independent Police Complaints Commission, with a heavy membership
of former police officers, and so on, in growing lines with the inclination to strengthen
the associative complexes and beliefs, rather than clarify belief to the level of
knowledge, where the vast distinction may certainly not be overlooked.
d) The proper question to ask when told, the body is not accountable is, not accountable
to who, and accountable to who else? One may find the answer illuminating. Not accountable
to Parliament, but accountable to its sources of income, where else? Here one needs
to look for the thrust. This is found by examination of the form and profile of the
person or body under focus, the same form as at the horse racing track. Does the
person or body have a form that follows the path of moral rectitude, or that of its
source of income, even when hidden in circumstances of venal conduct where large
revenue is at stake.
e) Take an example say the bodies known as PATAS, or NPAS, where some of its income
comes from the councils, and it has to rule, for and against, when motorists appeal
against what is usually correctly felt, injustice. Where such a 'conflict of interest'
arises, as is seemingly disapproved of in Parliament, the form and profiles of rulings
will show by their results, the performance patterns following the paths of appetition
and aversion, the basic pattern that all life forms live by, in modern day terminology
known as scientific methodology.
f) Now we are getting to closer quarters, and dimes. Where clarity closes also to
the hub of the problem. When the pattern of conduct conforms to the background relationship
of dependence on income, from the very body that delivers penal 'awards'; nicely
termed to further the objective of extenuating the 'feel good factors' on receipts
of detriments, then justice and sound reason will be seen to pay the price. Fallacious
spin arguments will replace sound reason, and venal conduct will become treason,
to truth and justice that is.
g) Justice, in its conflict of interests, “will bleed by the nose, and the pattern
is seen by the frequency of no's.
PICTURE of the world of discourse in a specific topic
From the calculus of Logic, about middle level expertise with serious simplifications.
(P) is a proposition or sentence schema.
(~P) Not P is the contrary or contradictory.
Partial or dependant V impartial or independent.
Things that are dependant or partial are TOTALLY within the yellow circle, where
the balloon is only to show the alternatives. Things that are contrary, ie; NOT these
things, are in the remaining universe of discourse represented by the grey rectangle.
The advanced section of the same above.
The questions above need to have been read beforehand or else you are particularly
familiar with the calculus of logic and class immediate inference principals.
1. Look at the OED meanings of the words, in most of the senses below, and decide
which sense is accurate for the determination you are making.
a) 4. (a) ought to be invariably the more relevant since income if the most powerful
influence on behaviour. Here they all are at footnote 2.
2. Look at the definition of classes, and the particular definition using scientific
method, for classification accurately in those values that produce false results
to the test being applied. Footnote 1.
3. I have brought up the key phrase for you.
a) Those significant values not yielding false propositions constitute the membership
of the class.
• The answer that the person or body depends on its source of incomefrom another
yields as you can readily see, a false proposition for the phrase “I am NOT-dependent”
that is the material equivalence for perfect substitution under the rules of the
calculus as “I am independent”, and therefore; being false you are obliged to tick
the yellow circle.
• This person is dependant and more likely than not to produce partial and favourable
results to his employer whether he is direct or indirect. If the purse strings are
the public purse beware, the person or body with the controlling influence over how
that money is used to employ or discharge is as good as a direct employer, the diffusion
of the notion the electorate pays is a
• fallacy of composition, and or fallacy of division, among others, for the more
expert in fallacies of which there are some hundred or more well known.
4. The answer to the questions above in the easy section will be all that is required
to make a sound tenable and incontrovertible conclusion to the decision you are making.
a) Incontrovertible against even the semantic spin-sters who say independence is
in another sense than income, where the real way to find out is by the conduct, composition
and results produced in the adjudication process under scrutiny. IE, where the compositon
does not include a lay person and someone with some ability to prevent the abuse
of fallacies, then you are UNlikely to have the pertinent composition.
b) A short answer to those who prefer to mangle sense and make non-sense of from
it, is from our great thinker Shakespeare.
c) “Your sense pursues not mine;”
• If they insist then you can insist on completing the whole phrase.
• “Your sense pursues not mine; either you are ignorant Or seem so,craftily; and
that's not good.
Classes and Immediate Inference
The Notion of a Class. Connections between Functional and Class Notations. Class
Interpretation of the Four Aristotelian Forms. Diagrammatic Representation of the
Four Aristotelian Forms. The Venn Diagrams and the Square of Opposition. The Revised
Square of Opposition. Distribution of Terms. Forms of Propositions of Ordinary Discourse.
Obversion. Conversion. Applications of the Processes of Obversion and Conversion.
§55. THE NOTION OF A CLASS
"We are all acquainted with the notion of a class from the usage of class terms in
ordinary English. The class of men is all men; the class of sleek cats, all sleek
cats. A class may be viewed as all those entities having a certain property, or satisfying
a certain propositional function. This function is said to "define" or "determine"
the class, and the members of the class are those of the significant values of the
defining function which give rise to a true proposition when substituted for the
variable. For example, when values are assigned to the function “x is male", the
result is in some cases a true proposition and in others a false one. Those significant
values not yielding false propositions constitute the membership of the class. It
is not to be supposed that a class is an entity which remains invariant throughout
a series of changes in its membership. Values satisfying the defining function constitute
the class, and we have a different class when there is a different membership. Different
classes may thus have the same defining property; "x is a man" determines different
aggregates of individuals from day to day, ie., different sets of values satisfying
the function on different occasions..
Credit to Ambroze and Lazerowitz directly Chapter 10, P220.
The key sentence is;
“Those significant values not yielding false propositions constitute the membership
of the class. “
1. a. Not depending upon the authority of another, not in a position of subordination
or subjection;not subject to external control or rule; self-governing, autonomous,
NPAS do NOT conform to this definition, in particular they conform to dependence
ON revenue from the council they INCLINE to DEFEND, and that is abundantly evidenced
in the NPAS ruling you are being held to account for.
2. (with capital I.) Belonging or adhering to that form of ecclesiastical polity
3. Not depending on something else for its existence, validity, efficiency, operation,
or some other attribute; not contingent on or conditioned by anything else.
b. simply. Not depending upon the existence or action of others, or of each other;
existing, acting, conducted, or obtained in a way apart from and unaffected by others,
as independent action, inquiry, investigation, conclusion, results, account, record,
information, evidence; independent suspension; also of the agent, as independent
investigator, observer, witness, etc.
c. Often used adverbially in phr. independent of (_ on, _ from) = Independently of,
apart from, without regard to, irrespective of.
4. Not dependent or having to rely on another for support or supplies.
(a) Not dependent on any one else for one's living;
(b) not needing to earn one's livelihood; possessing a competency.
5. a. Not depending on others for the formation of opinions or guidance of conduct;
not influenced or biased by the opinions of others; thinking or acting, or disposed
to think or act, for oneself. (Of persons, their dispositions, etc.)
b. A person who acts (in politics, art, etc.) independently of any organized party;
also, a member of any organized party called Independent (see A. 5 b).