A TREATISE ON CRITICAL THINKING

IN A MODERN WORLD OF LINGUISTIC CONTROL MECHANISMS

FUNDAMENTALS OF RESISTING AND DISMANTLING SPIN

Critical analysis at varying levels of abstraction, a practical guide

( Toc ) to everyday exchanges intended to widen perception . ( Toc )

A citizens toolbox for everyday use in DIY dismantling of spin, casuistry, sophistry, and mindlessness.



A new 12 chapter book.


PREFACE

Part 1.

A practical guide to going behind the faces of deception.



Understanding; and where necessary resisting, everyday forms of persuasion designed to serve detriments on the individual. Seeing how the abuse of semantics in naming them benefits; to maintain a feel good factor, is totally unacceptable form of living an illusion that serves the interests of power and money.





CHAPTER 1

Part 1.

Universals and particulars. 10

Deductive reasoning. 10

The syllogism. 11

Simplifying the above with Venn diagrams. 14

Six essential rules and two axioms of validity; 16

Deep critical analysis of one paragraph from case study . 17

Twenty rules for disambiguation of sophistry. 24

The antilogism.............................................................................................................54




Preamble to sections of Chapter 1.


  1. Examine the paragraph or introduction, and title looking for what may be the main premiss that sets the frame of reference.

  2. Identify, separate and number each sentence, speed parsing it.

  3. Look at the sentences and determine if and which ones, misdirect focus away from the heart of the issue(s) in dispute.

  4. Look for layering, opacities, transparencies and interdependencies.

  5. Identify the subject and predicate, bracket the parts of grammar.

  6. Hunt for the propositions in the sentences, parse it carefully..

  7. Test them in a mental matrix truth table. Very easy.

  8. Look for deliberate ambiguities,and false emphasis on trivial differences.

  9. Focus on the significant omissions.

  10. Apply a 'reductio ad absurdum test.

  11. Check the argument in context for unambiguous and inconsistent inferences.

  12. Examine the argument for abstract, (ontological) proof.

  13. Apply an elementary objective test of correspondence theory.

  14. Look for breaches of the three laws of thought.

  15. Examine the converse / obverse of the consequence, propositionally.

  16. Look for fallacies of composition numerically, all, some, none, and absence thereof.

  17. Look for any reason to use scientific method in necessary and sufficient conditions.

  18. Compare purpose and design of total thrust with principles of cosmological argument.

  19. Make relevant analogies and see if they are tenable or look irrational.

  20. Look for relevant inconsistencies in pursuit of unambiguous inferences.

  21. Lampoon, satire, irony, sarcasm, ridicule, metaphor, and such forms.








The index of the book, substantially completed, being proof read and mounted, expected release in 2-3 months.
IN A MODERN WORLD OF LINGUISTIC CONTROL MECHANISMS

FUNDAMENTALS OF RESISTING AND DISMANTLING SPIN

Critical analysis at varying levels of abstraction, a practical guide

( Toc ) to everyday exchanges intended to widen perception . ( Toc )

A citizens toolbox for everyday. DIY disambiguation of spin, casuistry, sophistry, and mindlessness.

The actual index is in wrapped margins like this.

Table of Contents

A TREATISE ON CRITICAL THINKING ..........................................................................1

COPYRIGHT / CREDITS.....................................................................................................2

PREFACE..............................................................................................................................i

Part 1.................................................................................................................................i

A practical guide going behind the faces of deception......................................................i

Part 2.................................................................................................................................ii

The past infects the future, Diodorus Cronus. .................................................................ii

Part 3......................................................................................................................................v

Principles from a bubble of water, and a loaf...........................................................................vii

|

|

|

Addenda............................................................................................................................. 197


Part of the glossary


Glossary of terms.

Abduction................ A syllogism, of which the major premiss is certain, and the minor only probable, so that the conclusion has only the probability of the minor; apagoge.

Acausal.................... not causal; not causally related.

Actus reus................ is the act which, in combination with a certain mental state, such as intent or recklessness, constitutes a crime.

Analytic.................... (of a statement etc.) such that its denial is self-contradictory; true by definition

Apagoge................... A demonstration which does not prove a thing directly, but shows the absurdity or impossibility of denying it; a reductio ad absurdum.

Apodeictic................. problematic – assertoric. distinction among the modalities of propositions. A problematic proposition states what is possible; an assertoric proposition states what is actual; and an apodeictic proposition states what is necessary. For example: "A novel could be larger than a dictionary." is problematic. "Atlanta is larger than Knoxville." is assertoric. "142 is larger than 37." is apodeictic. Of clear demonstration; established on incontrovertible evidence. (By Kant applied to a proposition enouncing a necessary and hence absolute truth.)

A posteriori............. (of concepts, knowledge, etc.) logically dependent on experience; not a maxim.

A priori.................... (of concepts, knowledge, etc.) logically independent of experience; not derived from experience.

Averment................. The action of positively declaring as true; assertion, affirmation. OED 3.

A small true life exdample.



Here are some of the titles and chapters from the earlier index.

Table of Contents

A TREATISE ON CRITICAL THINKING 1

COPYRIGHT / CREDITS 2

PREFACE i

Part 1. i

A practical guide going behind the faces of deception. i

Part 2 vi

The past infects the future, Diodorus Cronus. vi

Part 3 xi

Principles from a bubble of water, and a loaf. xi

CONTENTS 1 xv

Blank Page xix

INTRODUCTION 1 1

General Laws, and phenomena. 1

INTRODUCTION 2 5

Free Will within Determinism. 5

INTRODUCTION 3 7

Outlines of design and purpose. 7

Opaque layered presentations. 10

CHAPTER 1 11

Part 1. 11

Universals and particulars. 11

Deductive reasoning. 11

The syllogism. 12

Simplifying the above with Venn diagrams. 15

Six essential rules and two axioms of validity; 17

The antilogism. 18

Deep critical analysis of one paragraph from case study . 18

Over twenty rules for disambiguation of sophistry. 26

Part 2. 74

Inductive reasoning. 74

Part 3. 76

Abductive reasoning. 76

Part 4. 79

Instinct, intuition and apperceptive reasoning. 79

CHAPTER 2 80

Part 1. 80

The three laws of thought. 80

Part 2. 83

Special focus on contradictions and contrarieties. 83

Heraclitus' theory of flux, indicates nothing is the same a moment later! 91

CHAPTER 3 93

Part 1. 93

Scientific methodology. 93

CHAPTER 4 93

Part 1. 94

Divergent and convergent thinking in legal drafting. 94

The principle here is excruciatingly simple. Universal and particulars. 94

Convergent thinking in legal tripping. Trapping arguments. 94

Divergent thinking resolves the subjectivity to objectivity. 98

Fluxing the thinking process. 99

Convergent rulings that are absurd as divergent precedents. 99

Daft drafting of statutes replete with nomological danglers for abuse. 101

How nomological danglers are abused, by several councils. 102

The forces of reaction where arguments meet the ambit of a tribunal. 104

Identifying the thrust behind equanimity in countenance. 105

Choreographed choosing of which CPR rules to uphold and which to hold up. 106

Two 'fair and public' hearings more like a pair of public leerings 106

Oh what a falling off was there! 107

CHAPTER 5 108

Part 1. 109

High Court, County court, PATAS rulings that show fallacious reasoning. 109

How some rulings show design and purpose in convergent thinking. 109

Some convergent rulings block divergent thinking, veiling discernible bias. 110

CHAPTER 6 111

Part 1. 111

Some techniques used in advertising products. 111

Advertising political ideologies like washing powders. 113

CHAPTER 7 114

Part 1. 114

Balance of probabilities in reasoning. 114

CHAPTER 8 115

Part 1. 115

Getting at TRUTH, not necessarily winning. 115

The time honoured old fashion methodologies. 116

The polygraph reinforces those longstanding methods. 117

Brain fingerprinting and seeing thoughts, corroborate near certainties. 118

Acts show 'actus reus' in their traces 119

Omissions throw 'mens rea' into cohesion of the two faces. 120

Lingua lapsa verum dicit, undermines culpa lata. 121

Binding the two into the structure and dynamics of exchanges, and hearings. 123

Culpability is a function of anticipation and expectation. 124

The Mens Mentis of Praecelsus. 124

Culpability, 'mens rea', context, behaviour, conduct. 129

CHAPTER 9 130

Part 1. 130

Classes and immediate inferences. 130

Part 2. 131

Class faults laid at the foot of individual cases for actuarial advantage. 131

Fallacy of convergent rulings, that are divergent foolings. 132

Interest and Probability, 133

Causation, forseeability and accountability. 133

Part 3. 133

Class misdirection, describing tangential procedures that are inconsequential. 133

Part 4. 134

From 3 above, the overwhelming false cause arguments. 134

CHAPTER 10 134

Part 1. 134

The art of “suppressio veri”, “suggestio falsi”. 134

Part 2. 138

The art of what to Omit and what to Commit. 138

Part 3. 138

Balancing the asymmetry of information. Hamlet, Othello etc. 138

Part 3. 147

Some scientific background. 147

Part 4. 148

Identifying features in engineered landscape of profit centred bias. 148

Looking into the dilated iris of depredatory opportunism. 148

The rebuttable presumptions identified in common usage. 149

A real life example 149

Part 5. 154

One of two examples of similar false cause persuasion photography. 154

Angular photography for purpose of gain. 155

Part 6. 157

Two of two examples of false cause malfeasance. 157

CHAPTER 11 159

Part 1. 159

Unambiguous Contextual inferencing. 159

Part 1. 167

The art of mis-correspondence in senses . 167

How to swear a truthful lie. 168

The literary irony in senses that incense. 170

Frege's Sense and Reference. 174

Russell's On Denoting. 175

CHAPTER 12 175

The structure and dynamics of a deaf hearing. 175

Part 1 176

Bleaching allusions. 176

Breaching delusions. 177

Impeaching illusions. 180

Unblocking occlusions. 181

Foregone conclusion. 182

Screeching collusions. 184 A short extract in proof is shown below the end.

Page 2 185

Reaching disillusions. 185

BIBLIOGRAPHY – FURTHER READING. 186

GLOSSARY OF TERMS 189

INDEX 194

Credits, disclaimers and apologies. 195

Addenda. 302

Addenda 1 302

Addenda 2 309

Actual page count including introduction 234. 310

End 310



From page 176, a short synopsis.

This is an extract that is referred to in a thread at Swab on this link. DVLA Money Spinner

http://www.swarb.co.uk/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=5639&sid=6d07e5d2c6ad23f76597f3e36ce5fda1

4 - An example all too delirious for some, who prefer to look aslant.

This example case occupies only about 3 percent of the book to be released here.

This I have seen, and recorded, and will place on the web most of the 700 pages soon, how errant peccant authority tried this all on; breached about 17 statutes in the process, and made outrageous presumptions; based on their omniscience, and the respondent's 'deemed' ignorance, that were fully rebutted beyond any reasonable doubt, to a level that is shockingly beyond a shadow of doubt. I trust the difference is clear? But of course, the claimant is misguided, The claimant has authorities' own declarations, self contradictions and false representations on their own papers, and still perhaps may be excused for genuinely believing what is KNOWN for certain, and they believe they can force down the claiamnt's throat in a flurry of cognitive abuses. Funny, the Judge in that hearing asked the claimant “did you write all this?”, “Yes”, How does an ordinary person cope with such a problem?”, “They don't, they simply go under.”

It's not for your consumption, as you are 'too tired and lack the energy' to look at the face of truth; while suggesting it's mendacity, and describing its features in any terms like 'this stuff', that 'is genuinely believed no doubt.'

So; this is all digression, with apologies for taking the space, if it's too much I can remove it, and place it on another site with simply a LINK that will save all that electronic space that is in such short supply.

It's for the readers who do have the time, inclination, desire and innocence to look into this errant peccant behaviour. Here is a small sample take from letterheads of the said authority to do precisely what the DVLA is pursuing in the course of conduct that has unambiguous context showing reserve of the use of discretion, while there is a 'fine' to win in the debate on superiority of knowledge against ignorance, rather than equity and fairness in justice; in a sense that may be , marked down as 'obs.' in the OED soon. Re-lying on the maxim, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' is among the litany of similar palliations of errant conduct that tries to cover omissions as simple negligence while all the while focussed on the revenue, and not the justice of it.

This is a story based on fact, not 'genuine belief', and there are 'authority letterheads' to prove it. For those who doubt, then can send me a PM, and I will provide a link to the short critical analysis, backed with the 5-6 original letterheads; from the aforesaid omniscient 'authority', showing the first insight to 4 of at least 20 self contradictions that got their legal team all running for the cover of vicarious ir-responsibility. All a bit too poetic for some, who rely on connotations to have their effects, and bury the strict denotations in a mist of association complexes, hoping that one image will misdirect.

Here is the easy read of the first part of bundle one 334 pages, that took the court six weeks to read before issuing the claim.

ALL PRIMARILY SELF CONTRADICTIONS.

1.Early Summer 2006, authority was notified of a draft claim prepared showing 4 breaches of statute. After several more exchanges containing false representations; the authority was warned clearly and foreseeably they had no understanding of;

a)the function of culpability in anticipation and expectation, AND

b)had no idea how unambiguous contextual inferencing worked at all.

With this warning, coupled with a comment that TRUTH comes out instantly without deliberation, they proceeded to deliberate 27 days before crafting the following reply containing FOUR further false representations, all within the meaning of; at that time in draft, the Fraud Act October 2006. They went on to satisfy that act into January 2007.

2.Letter. Exhibit 1

“We have reviewed the Council's records in light of your assertion and record that at no stage have we received any representations from you."

First comment; this ( no stage any ) contradicts the existence of the letter they are replying to, why are they even writing to the respondent? You don't even need an exhibit for this 'averment' and false representation.

But if you do need exhibits then here is ONE of FIVE EARLIER letters among some twenty emails; all being “nothing to do with representations at any time”.

Exhibit 1 contradicts Exhibit 2 from the SAME author, locum solicitor, two months earlier, stating they are

“preparing a substantive response” ( to representations, what else? )

3.Hence Exhibit 1 contradicts Exhibit 3 , from the SAME borough;

“However despite your stated intention, no formal representations have been made.”

Next comment; In their omniscience they KNOW what the respondent did, not what they received and signed for. They were shown the SIGNED DATED STAMPED RECEIPT / DECEIT on THEIR LETTERHEAD, describing the reading of a FORMAL appeal in writing on their own appeal form. ( This respondent was certain for many years, of what the originator of this thread only suspected; in misplaced trust, in his circumspection. )

4.Exhibit 1 contradicts Exhibit 4 from the Traffic enforcement centre,

“an Order for Recovery, which will be issued very shortly”

Next comment; In their omniscience they KNOW they haven't registered the debt and each week the respondent was receiving emails from TEC,

Exhibit 4, saying “Hello the debt had not been registered”,

with all the potential of a second time around swing at delinquency in derogation of duty in failure to send APPEALS in SCHEDULE 6, and STAT DECS in CPR 75.3. Putting all this negligence at the door of the post services. A later FOI question was answered that NO appeal or Notice of Rejection was every sent out. Amused ?

When three days later they 'ACCEPTED' the irrefutable; after trying desperately to force rebuttable presumption down the claimant's throat for daring to pay and ask in advance for a hearing, that the respondent was RIGHT; they then carefully overlooked the fact of yet another statutory breach that, in their next letter stating;

1.“It is now accepted that you did in fact deliver formal representations to Parking Solutions, together with the signed declaration on the reserve Notice to Owner on 21 July.

Meant the former averments of 'genuine beliefs no doubt' had to be thrown overboard in the rush for safety;

a ) “We note your assertion that the council is in breach of the Road Traffic Act 1991 ("the Act") in that you have been served with a Charge Certificate in relation the above Penalty Charge Notice without first being served with a Notice of Rejection of Representations, Statutory Application and Appeal Form.

b) The Council will of course be defending its position that it has acted in accordance with the Act.

They had now ADMITTED that THEY HAD BREACHED while threatening they were preparing to “of course be defending its position”.

And continued into February 2007 to hold on to enforcement 'that was NOT AT THIS TIME, until they pleaded would the respondent please give up his action as they had cancelled their petty PCN, after the respondent had proffered payment in FULL of £100, way back in May 2006, returning it with accompanying descriptions of procedure.

They didn't want this respondent to have a fair and public hearing, under protocol 5 article 6, and denied him MAGNA CARTA 39-40 where 'to NO MAN will we deny or delay JUSTICE' and forget about three stone weight loss for a person registered with them as disabled, under the disability Act 2005? That was all part of the fun in relying on asymmetry of knowledge to extract and subtract illegally!

Now please lets all be reasonable, this is just a game. PATAS call it the 'SCHEME' and the DVLA is the same, but somehow they haven't got rid of the Bill of Rights ......... YET?

All very amusing I guess for the schadenfreud specialists in winning without proof while being peccant without truth. But this kind of conduct can KILL people who are disabled.