Monday, April 13, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Logical Convenience
During the course of discussion a friend, an intellectual, said "what I hate most is people stick to an example given in support of an argument.......
They don’t get the point but go on to split and destroy the example."
I wondered what he said was correct or not. The basic point of a debate or an argument is, if a party gives an example to support his statement one has to defy the example to establish the incorrectness.
Logic goes mathematically on this, the underlying mathematical principle is -
‘A thousand examples given to prove something holds good are not enough, but to disprove a single example is’.
Will come back to it some other time, I thought, as my pointing it wasn't going to bring his faith in what I say, so I joined the discussion again.
As he continued with is theory suggesting learning to 'generalize' the things as and get the gist and not to kill the example. This statement again made me think- Aristotle says that is a way towards the destruction of an argument. Extending the statement to its limit will always make it fall as it is the area where its applicability is of question and it is by the alteration of these limits that people debate.
Take the example A says : Australians are the best in drama.
The opponent, B, can argue by saying : In recent competitions Europeans have more accolades of classical singing, dancing and operas.
A’s statement has fallen due to 'generalization' from drama to all theater oriented arts. Sticking to the example is the best way to defend for A. Say by saying that he had commented about drama and not theater.
As the discussion continued and I sighted examples and he tried to destroy them to approve his statement. How convenient? And yes what about the suggestion to get the gist…. did I miss something. Only this time we had switched sides and he is on the side with mathematical advantage. I wonder how one who doesn’t approve of a method, still uses it when it is to his benefit. Either the principle of argument (The Logic) has never been observed or it is just the matter of convenience.
I bet its both, as for the convenient one doesn’t need a reason, it’s the inconvenient that needs a good reason - a Logic -to go with.
It’s the ‘Logical Convenience’ that we look for. Our life is full of choices.... decisions..... questions .... Do we always choose the Logical ? Similarly do we always choose the Convenient ?
Its the 'Logical Convenience' that one follows. It always has been.
They don’t get the point but go on to split and destroy the example."
I wondered what he said was correct or not. The basic point of a debate or an argument is, if a party gives an example to support his statement one has to defy the example to establish the incorrectness.
Logic goes mathematically on this, the underlying mathematical principle is -
‘A thousand examples given to prove something holds good are not enough, but to disprove a single example is’.
Will come back to it some other time, I thought, as my pointing it wasn't going to bring his faith in what I say, so I joined the discussion again.
As he continued with is theory suggesting learning to 'generalize' the things as and get the gist and not to kill the example. This statement again made me think- Aristotle says that is a way towards the destruction of an argument. Extending the statement to its limit will always make it fall as it is the area where its applicability is of question and it is by the alteration of these limits that people debate.
Take the example A says : Australians are the best in drama.
The opponent, B, can argue by saying : In recent competitions Europeans have more accolades of classical singing, dancing and operas.
A’s statement has fallen due to 'generalization' from drama to all theater oriented arts. Sticking to the example is the best way to defend for A. Say by saying that he had commented about drama and not theater.
As the discussion continued and I sighted examples and he tried to destroy them to approve his statement. How convenient? And yes what about the suggestion to get the gist…. did I miss something. Only this time we had switched sides and he is on the side with mathematical advantage. I wonder how one who doesn’t approve of a method, still uses it when it is to his benefit. Either the principle of argument (The Logic) has never been observed or it is just the matter of convenience.
I bet its both, as for the convenient one doesn’t need a reason, it’s the inconvenient that needs a good reason - a Logic -to go with.
It’s the ‘Logical Convenience’ that we look for. Our life is full of choices.... decisions..... questions .... Do we always choose the Logical ? Similarly do we always choose the Convenient ?
Its the 'Logical Convenience' that one follows. It always has been.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Spending Model
After a tiring day I am in the balcony, leaning against the wall, trying to relax and fell the breeze. I wonder whether these are the moments that recharge me and keep me going in this restless city. Was just about to wade in the deeper thoughts when a repeated thrashing sound caught my attention, as usual it is the train rushing past the apartment building. It is the neighboring station which makes the apartments costly and the same train balances the cost by its noise.
Any way it is a great service which keeps the city going. A great invention but takes a whole lot to build. Even burdens the governments which we often see rescuing institutes in trouble. How should the government spend its money? After all its not its own money it belongs to the people it comprises of, people it is answerable to, people who trust it. How should decision be made to spend even a single penny.
Should it spend a lot as it is its spending which mobilizes the markets, puts dispensable money in the pockets, or should it always operate at break even spending just the right amount so as to serve the very cause it was made for. Well savings can also come in handy to support the rest and keep the fund for the calamities.
Every spent penny can be seen as an investment the government makes in the society. The decision making, I feel, should have assumption of perpetual operation, as is done in case of organization of strategic importance. Say the military many portions are never audited but still the decision has to be made and it should be justifiable.
The perpetual decision making should assume the infinite life of the investor or at least greater than the effective life of the investment. Thus making every investment which pays back over its life time as a valid investment.
To put it mathematically....
If Return over the life time of the investment/ Investment >= 1 ;
investment should me approved, and vice versa.
It seemed like a prety good option for evaluation but then these organisations which use this method are not supposed to make any revenue or increment in value over time. But the nation as a whole is expected to progress with time and not be stagnant. To remove this fallacy a slight modification in the equation will be needed it.
If Return over the life time of investment/ Investment >= 1+ Inflation proof Govt. bond rate ;
then the investment should be approved and vice versa
All these investments will improve the social standards at the same time keeping pace with the targeted growth rates of the national economy.
Any way it is a great service which keeps the city going. A great invention but takes a whole lot to build. Even burdens the governments which we often see rescuing institutes in trouble. How should the government spend its money? After all its not its own money it belongs to the people it comprises of, people it is answerable to, people who trust it. How should decision be made to spend even a single penny.
Should it spend a lot as it is its spending which mobilizes the markets, puts dispensable money in the pockets, or should it always operate at break even spending just the right amount so as to serve the very cause it was made for. Well savings can also come in handy to support the rest and keep the fund for the calamities.
Every spent penny can be seen as an investment the government makes in the society. The decision making, I feel, should have assumption of perpetual operation, as is done in case of organization of strategic importance. Say the military many portions are never audited but still the decision has to be made and it should be justifiable.
The perpetual decision making should assume the infinite life of the investor or at least greater than the effective life of the investment. Thus making every investment which pays back over its life time as a valid investment.
To put it mathematically....
If Return over the life time of the investment/ Investment >= 1 ;
investment should me approved, and vice versa.
It seemed like a prety good option for evaluation but then these organisations which use this method are not supposed to make any revenue or increment in value over time. But the nation as a whole is expected to progress with time and not be stagnant. To remove this fallacy a slight modification in the equation will be needed it.
If Return over the life time of investment/ Investment >= 1+ Inflation proof Govt. bond rate ;
then the investment should be approved and vice versa
All these investments will improve the social standards at the same time keeping pace with the targeted growth rates of the national economy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)