Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4

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 resources.

• 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, will be;

 4. Accountability as well as account ability. The second or third of the notorious ambiguities.

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 the till.

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 income from 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.






Footnote 1

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.


"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. “


Footnote 2.


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, free.


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 called independency


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.

b. simply.

(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).


ppbd99c0e0.jpg ppba2eb11d.jpg pp05d5db36.jpg

ppaaa2ac7d.jpg    pp3fb7ff31.jpg  pp3cea321c.jpg

       Rape of Proserpina (Bernini, in marble)


         Surrounded by blind justice


Top - The many faces of mendacity.