Revisiting Three Archive Posts Dealing With Fundamentals of Logic and Making a Good Argument:

In years past it was the misfortune of your host to have a parting of ways with old friends over matters that should not have been. However, he at the time was not aware except in some vague fashion that certain good friends had serious problems when it came to dialogue on subjects outside of their comfort zone. Now we all have issues like this so it helps at times to remember that there are valid and invalid ways to approach such subjects. And while the incidents I refer to above unfortunately did not resolve themselves in a manner that would have been preferable to me, one of them nonetheless provided material for the composition of three posts which go over fundamental factors for dialogue. I will link to each one and explain very briefly what they are about:

On the Difference Between Objective Meaning and Subjective Intention (circa February 27, 2007)

The bottom line of any non-normative{1} (read: objective) handling of a subject matter is to separate what is said from what is intended. A person can intend something that they do not well deal with in explaining themselves. However, too often people confuse their normative{2} (read: subjective) intention is what they actually manifest in their writings or public statements. The above posting explains the difference between the two and why the distinction is such an important one to make.

On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof (circa March 8, 2007)

Essentially there are valid and invalid ways to appeal to an authority and the above posting explains now to differentiate between the two.

On Ad Hominem, Revisiting Argumentum Ad Vericundiam, and Considering the Core Principle That Is Behind Any Argumentation/Logical Fallacy (circa June 1, 2007)

Contrary to what most people may think, there are valid{3} and invalid ways to utilize the argument to the man (Lat. argumentum ad vericunduam) and the above posting explains how to differentiate the valid from the invalid usage of that approach to argument.

Anyway, from time to time it helps to revisit these sorts of fundamental elements of dialogue and constructing valid arguments and as this writer sensed the value of doing so at this time; ergo that is what this post you are reading has sought to do.

Notes:

{1} Non-Normative: Deals with what is verifiable by the examination of facts which are capable of resolving the issue and therefore is properly viewed as objective in nature. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa August 21, 2006)]

{2} Normative: Deals with what is "better" or "worse" and therefore involves a value judgment which is properly viewed as subjective in nature. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa August 21, 2006)]

{3} The prudence of attempting this approach or lack thereof aside for a moment.

Points to Ponder:

If this was 1908 it would be the buggy whip industry claiming they were "too big to fail" likewise when the light bulb was the next big thing the Kerosene industry begging for funds cause they were "too bit to fail." Or in the 1970's when computers begin becoming better and better and on the verge of being in homes if the slide rule industry had applied for aid cause of the "too big to fail" rationale and now we have the auto dealers saying it. At what size exactly does one qualify as being "too big to fail"??? What happened to letting actions and responsibility go hand in hand??? [Musings circa January 10, 2009]

Veteran Psychiatrist Calls Liberals Mentally Ill

If not for a lack of time, I could peruse the archives of this weblog and point to many examples of my saying the same thing.

An interesting assessment of some of the strengths and weaknesses of the outgoing president and his administration.