:heart: New section is "PSICHOLOGY", in this section you can ask, share and solve all psicology problem such as love/marriage problems, parents/home problems, personal problems, work problems, school problems, friendship problems and many problems we facing everydays as a human being. You have to respons with “Educated, Care and Fact reasons respons”. You can Quote also, to help solved it with your opinions or maybe your experience answer. All language in this sections is use Care, Lovely, Smart and Optimism/supported words.No bad words or respons is allow in this sections. All bad things will be deleted by forum. We share only good things to help each other in personal problem, not to laugh them or embarrassed our friends. In that order, alias persons is allow, I mean you can use “my friend has a problem or my sister/brother experienced with this problems is……” to cover identity, and you can attach all conected things with PSICHOLOGY:idea:
Thank you verymuch for read this, and May we start share about How crazzy, funny, ponury, and colourfull our live is...And solve our problems...Together:heart:

The Story of Psyche and Eros Dr. C. George Boeree
[Only registered and activated users can see links] so-called psyche or butterfly is generated from caterpillars which grow on green leaves, chiefly leaves of theraphanus, which some call crambe or cabbage. At first it is less than a grain of millet; it then grows into a small grub; and in three days it is a tiny caterpillar. After this it grows on and on, and becomes quiescent and changes its shape, and is now called a chrysalis. The outer shell is hard,and the chrysalis moves if you touch it. It attaches itself by cobweb-like filaments, and is unfurnished with mouth or any other apparent organ. After a little while the outer covering bursts asunder, and out flies the winged creature that we call the psyche or butterfly. (From Aristotle's History of Animals 551a.1) Psyche was one of three sisters, princesses in a Grecian kingdom. All three were beautiful, but Psyche was the most beautiful. Aphrodite, the goddess of love and beauty, heard about Psyche and her sisters and was jealous of all the attention people paid to Psyche. So she summoned her son, Eros, and told him to put a spell on Psyche. Always obedient, Eros flew down to earth with two vials of potions. Invisible, he sprinkled the sleeping Psyche with a potion that would make men avoid her when it came to marriage. Accidentally, he pricked her with one of his arrows (which make someone fall in love instantly) and she startled awake. Her beauty, in turn, startled Eros, and he accidentally pricked himself as well. Feeling bad about what he had done, he then sprinkled her with the other potion, which would provide her with joy in her life.
Sure enough, Psyche, although still beautiful, could find no husband. Her parents, afraid that they had offended the gods somehow, asked an oracle to reveal Psyche's future husband. The oracle said that, while no man would have her, there was a creature on the top of a mountain that would marry her.
Surrendering to the inevitable, she headed for the mountain. When she came within sight, she was lifted by a gentle wind and carried the rest of the way. When she arrived, she saw that her new home was in fact a rich and beautiful palace. Her new husband never permitted her to see him, but he proved to be a true and gentle lover. He was, of course, Eros himself.
After some time, she grew lonely for her family, and she asked to be allowed to have her sisters for a visit. When they saw how beautiful Psyche's new home was, they grew jealous. They went to her and told her not to forget that her husband was some kind of monster, and that, no doubt, he was only fattening her up in order to eat her. They suggested that she hide a lantern and a knife near her bed, so that the next time he visited her, she could look to see if he was indeed a monster, and cut off his head if it was so.

Her sisters convinced her this was best, so the next time her husband came to visit her, she had a lamp and a knife ready. When she raised the lamp, she saw that her husband was not a monster but Eros! Surprised, he ran to the window and flew off. She jumped out after him, but fell the ground and lay there unconscious.
When she awoke, the palace had disappeared, and she found herself in a field near her old home. She went to the temple of Aphrodite and prayed for help. Aphrodite responded by giving her a series of tasks to do -- tasks that Aphrodite believed the girl would not be able to accomplish.
The first was a matter of sorting a huge pile of mixed grains into separate piles. Psyche looked at the pile and despaired, but Eros secretly arranged for an army of ants to separate the piles. Aphrodite, returning the following morning, accused Psyche of having had help, as indeed she had.
The next task involved getting a snippet of golden fleece from each one of a special herd of sheep that lived across a nearby river. The god of the river advised Psyche to wait until the sheep sought shade from the midday sun. Then they would be sleepy and not attack her. When Psyche presented Aphrodite with the fleece, the goddess again accused her of having had help.
The third task Aphrodite set before Psyche was to get a cup of water from the river Styx, where it cascades down from an incredible height. Psyche thought it was all over, until an eagle helped her by carrying the cup up the mountain and returning it full. Aphrodite was livid, knowing full well that Psyche could never have done this alone!
Psyche's next task was to go into hell to ask Persephone, wife of Hades, for a box of magic makeup. Thinking that she was doomed, she decided to end it all by jumping off a cliff. But a voice told her not to, and gave her instructions on making her way to hell to get the box. But, the voice warned, do not look inside the box under any circumstances!
Well, Psyche received the box from Persephone and made her way back home. But, true to her nature, she was unable to restrain herself from peeking inside. To her surprise, there was nothing inside but darkness, which put her into a deep sleep. Eros could no longer restrain himself either and wakened her. He told her to bring the box to Aphrodite, and that he would take care of the rest.




Eros went to the heavens and asked Zeus to intervene. He spoke of his love for Psyche so eloquently that Zeus was moved to grant him his wish. Eros brought Psyche to Zeus who gave her a cup of ambrosia, the drink of immortality. Zeus then joined Psyche and Eros in eternal marriage. They later had a daughter, who would be named Pleasure.
The Greek name for a butterfly is Psyche, and the same word means the soul. There is no illustration of the immortality of the soul so striking and beautiful as the butterfly, bursting on brilliant wings from the tomb in which it has lain, after a dull, grovelling, caterpillar existence, to flutter in the blaze of day and feed on the most fragrant and delicate productions of the spring. Psyche, then, is the human soul, which is purified by sufferings and misfortunes, and is thus prepared for the enjoyment of true and pure happiness. (From Bulfinch's Mythology: The Age of Fable, chapter XI) **Image: The Abduction of Psyche, by William Adolphe Bourguereau (1825 - 1905).

[Only registered and activated users can see links] The Ancient Greeks, Part One:
The Pre-Socratics
Dr. C. George Boeree
"Know thyself."
-- inscribed on the Temple of Apollo at Delphi
Psyche, from the Greek psu-khê, possibly derived from a word meaning "warm blooded:" Life, soul, ghost, departed spirit, conscious self, personality, butterfly or moth. Similar words: Thymos, meaning breath, life, soul, temper, courage, will; Pneuma, meaning breath, mind, spirit, angel; Noös, meaning mind, reason, intellect, or the meaning of a word.
The Greeks
Western intellectual history always begins with the ancient Greeks. This is not to say that no one had any deep thoughts prior to the ancient Greeks, or that the philosophies of ancient India and China (and elsewhere) were in any way inferior. In fact, philosophies from all over the world eventually came to influence western thought, but only much later. But it was the Greeks that educated the Romans and, after a long dark age, it was the records of these same Greeks, kept and studied by the Moslem and Jewish scholars as well as Christian monks, that educated Europe once again.
We might also ask, why the Greeks in the first place? Why not the Phoenicians, or the Carthaginians, or the Persians, or the Etruscans? There are a variety of possible reasons.
One has to do with the ability to read and write, which in turn has to do with the alphabet. It is when ideas get recorded that they enter intellectual history. Buddhism, for example, although a very sophisticated philosophy, was an oral tradition for hundreds of years until committed to writing, since the Brahmi alphabet was late in coming. It was only then that Buddhism spread throughout Asia.
The alphabet was invented by the Semites of the Mediterranean coast, including the Hebrews and the Phoenicians, who used simple drawings to represent consonants instead of words. The Phoenicians apparently passed it on to the Greeks. The Greeks improved on the idea by inventing vowels, using some extra letters their language had no use for.

Prior to the invention of the alphabet, reading and writing was the domain of specialized scribes, concerned mostly with keeping government records. Even in the case of the Phoenicians, writing was more a tool of the merchant class, to keep track of trade, than a means of recording ideas. In Greece, at least in certain city-states, reading and writing was something “everyone” did.
By everyone, of course, I mean upper class males. Women, peasants, and slaves were discouraged from picking up the skill, as they would be and still are in many places around the world. If you wonder where all the women philosophers are, well, there were very few indeed! The poet Sappho of Lesbos is the closest we get to a female philosopher on record in the ancient world.

Still, the alphabet does not explain everything. Another thing that made the Greeks a bit more likely to start the intellectual ball rolling was the fact that they got into overseas trading early. Their land and climate was okay for agriculture, but not great, so the idea of trading for what you can’t grow or make yourself came naturally. Plus, Greece is practically all coastline and islands, so seafaring came equally naturally.
What sea trading gives you is contact with a great variety of civilizations, including their religions and philosophies and sciences. This gets people to thinking: If this one says x, and that one says y, and the third one says z, what then is the truth? Traders are usually skeptics.
Still, the Phoenicians (and their cousins, the Carthaginians) had the alphabet first, and were excellent sea traders as well. Why weren’t they the founders of western intellectual history? Perhaps it had to do with centralization. The Phoenicians had an authoritarian government controlled by the most powerful merchants. The Carthaginians had the same. Perhaps being surrounded by powerful authoritarian empires forced them to adopt that style of government to survive.
The Greeks, on the other hand, were divided into many small city-states, each unique, each fiercely independent, always bickering and often fighting. It may seem disadvantageous, but when it comes to ideas, diversity and even conflict can be invigorating! Consider that when Greece was finally united under Macedonian rule, the flurry of intellectual activity slowed. And when the Romans took over, it practically died.
The Basics
The ancient Greek philosophers gave us the basic categories of philosophy, beginning with metaphysics. Metaphysics is the part of philosophy that asks questions such as “What is the world made of?" and "What is the ultimate substance of all reality?”
In fact, the ancient Greeks were among the first to suggest that there is a “true” reality (noumenon) under the “apparent” reality (phenomenon), an “unseen real” beneath the “unreal seen.” The question is, what is this true reality? Is it matter and energy, i.e. something physical? This is called materialism. Or something more spiritual or mental, such as ideas or ideals? This is called idealism. Materialism and idealism constitute the two extreme answers. Later, we will explore some other possibilities.
A second aspect of philosophy is epistemology. Epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge: How do we know what is true or false, what is real or not? Can we know anything for certain, or is it ultimately hopeless?
Again, the Greeks outlined two opposing approaches to the problem of knowledge. One is called empiricism, which says that all knowledge comes through the senses. The other is called rationalism, which says that knowledge is a matter of reason, thought. There are other answers in epistemology as well. In fact, empiricism and rationalism have never been entirely exclusive.
The third aspect of philosophy that we will be concerned with is ethics. Ethics is the philosophical understanding of good and bad, right and wrong. It is often called morality, and most consider the two words synonymous. After all, ethics comes from ethos, which is Greek for customs, and morality comes from mores, which is Latin for customs!
As we shall see, ethics is the most difficult of the three aspects of philosophy. For the present, we might want to differentiate the extremes of hedonism and cynicism. Hedonism says that good and bad come down to what I like and what I don’t like, what gives me pleasure and what gives me pain. Cynicism says that world is essentially evil, and we can only work at distancing ourselves from it and moving towards the ultimate good, which is God.
There are many other aspects of philosophy -- logic, for example, and esthetics, the study of beauty. But metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics are sufficient for now.
The Ionians
[Only registered and activated users can see links] philosophy didn’t begin in Greece (as we know it); It began on the western coast of what is now Turkey, an area known then as Ionia. In Ionia’s richest city, Miletus, was a man of Phoenician descent called Thales (624-546). He studied in Egypt and other parts of the near east, and learned geometry and astronomy.
His answer to the great question of what the universe is made of was water. Inasmuch as water is a simple molecule, found in gaseous, liquid, and solid forms, and found just about everywhere, especially life, this is hardly a bad answer! It makes Thales not only the nominal first philosopher, but the first materialist as well. Since ultimate nature was known in Greek as physis, he could also be considered the first physicist (or, as the Greeks would say, physiologist).
We should note, however, that he also believed that the whole universe of material things is alive, and that animals, plants, and even metals have souls -- an idea called panpsychism.
[Only registered and activated users can see links] most famous student was Anaximander (611-549), also of Miletus. He is probably best known as having drawn the first known map of the inhabited world, which probably looked something like this:
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Anaximander added an evolutionary aspect to Thales’ materialism: The universe begins as an unformed, infinite mass, which develops over time into the many-faceted world we see around us. But, he warns, the world will eventually return to the unformed mass!
Further, the earth began as fluid, some of which dries to become earth and some of which evaporates to become atmosphere. Life also began in the sea, only gradually becoming animals of the land and birds of the air.
[Only registered and activated users can see links] Thales, Heraclitus (540-475) was an Ionian, from Ephesus, a little north of Miletus. And, like Thales, he was searching for the ultimate substance that unifies all reality. He decided on fire, or energy -- again, not a bad guess at all.
The multiplicity of reality comes out of fire by condensation, becoming humid air, then water, and finally earth. But this is balanced by rarefaction, and the earth liquifies, then evaporates, and finally returns to pure energy.
Taking fire as his ultimate substance led to a more dynamic view of reality. Change, for Heraclitus, is the only constant. “Panta rei, ouden menei” -- all things flow, nothing abides -- is his most famous saying. He is also known for the saying that we cannot step into the same river twice, because new water is constantly flowing onto us.
Fire is also associated in his theory with mind or spirit. And, just like any other fire, he points out that our individuality eventually dies. There is no personal immortality. Only God -- the divine fire -- is eternal.
In many ways, Heraclitus reminds me of a Greek Taoist. He believed that, although ultimate reality is One, the world we know is made of up dualities, with each pole requiring the existence of its opposite: Up requires down, white requires black, good requires bad, and so on.
And he sees these oppositions as being the source of harmony, pointing out that, unless you stretch your harp strings in two opposing directions, you cannot play music.
And, again like the Taoists, he believed that the best way to live one’s life is in harmony with nature. But he died alone, at the age of 70, due to his intense dislike for human company!
The Greeks of Italy
Another Ionian was Pythagorus (582-500). After travelling everywhere from Gaul (modern day France) to Egypt and India, he settled down in Crotona, a sea port of southern Italy. Southern Italy was the greatest settlement of Greeks outside of Greece, to the point that the Romans referred to the area as Magna Grecia (“greater Greece”). There, he set up his famous school.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
His school was more like a large commune, and his philosophy more like a religion. Because they believed in reincarnation, all of his followers were vegetarians. They avoided wine, swearing by the gods, sexual misconduct, excesses and frivolity. For the first five years, a new pupil took a vow of silence. Women were treated as equals -- a true rarity in the ancient world!
His philosophy was rooted in mathematics, which meant geometry to the ancient Greeks. Pythagorus is credited with a number of geometric proofs, most notably the pythagorian theorum: The sum of the squares of the two sides of a right triangle is equal to the square of the hypotenuse. He discovered the mathematical basis of music, and saw the same patterns in the movements of the planets. He is the first person to realize that the earth, moon, and planets are all spheres (hence, the "music of the spheres!"). He saw the elegant lawfulness of geometry as the foundation of the entire universe.
So, rather than look for an understanding of the universe in the movement of matter and energy, he looked for laws of nature, the form rather than the material. But, since these laws exist only in the mind as ideas, we call Pythagorus an idealist.
Although his life remains mysterious, his school lasted 300 years, and had a profound influence on all who followed, most particularly Plato.
In Elea, another Greek seaport in the south of Italy lived Xenophanes (570-475). He is best known for his denial of the existence of the Greek gods. [Only registered and activated users can see links]

“Mortals fancy that gods are born, and wear clothes, and have voice and form like themselves. Yet if oxen and lions had hands, and could paint and fashion images as men do, they would make the pictures and images of their gods in their own likenesses; horses would make them like horses, oxen like oxen. Ethiopians make their gods black and snub-nosed; Thracians give theirs blue eyes and red hair.” (from Diogenes Laertes “Xenophanes,” iii.)
There is only one God, he said, and that is the universe, Nature. This perspective is known as pantheism. Nevertheless, said Xenophanes, all things, even human beings, evolved from earth and water by means of natural laws. But things and people remain forever secondary to the ultimate reality that is God-or-Nature. [Only registered and activated users can see links] (540-470) of Elea, was a disciple of Xenophanes, and would have a particularly potent influence on Plato. He extended Xenophanes’ concept of the one God by saying “Hen ta panta,” all things are One. Ultimate reality is constant. What we believe to be a world of things and motion and change is just an illusion.
One of Parmenides’ disciples was Zeno of Elea (490-430, not to be confused with Zeno of Citium, whom we will look at in a later chapter). Zeno wrote a book of famous paradoxes, including the story of Achilles and the tortoise: Let’s give the tortoise a head start. By the time Achilles gets to where the tortoise started, the tortoise will have move a little further. By the time Achilles gets to where the tortoise had moved, the tortoise will have moved a little further still, and so on. Hence, Achilles can never catch up with the tortoise. The point of the story, and all the stories, is that motion is an illusion.
In making his point, he invented the form of argument known as "reduction to absurdity." Note, however, that his arguments don’t hold up in the long run, because he mistakenly takes motion, time, and space as made up of an infinite number of points, rather than being continuous.
The Abderans[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Leucippus (fl. c. 440) was from Miletus in Ionia, home of Thales and Anaximander. He studied with Zeno at Elea, then started teaching in Abdera, an Ionian Greek colony on the southern shore of Thrace (northeastern Greece).
Although only one sentence of his actual teachings remains, Leucippus will always be remembered as the man who invented the ideas of the atom, empty space, and cause-and-effect. Even the soul, he said, is made up of atoms!
[Only registered and activated users can see links] was Leucippus’ student, Democritus (460-370) of Abdera, who would take these ideas and develop them into a full-bodied philosophy. He travelled extensively, wrote books on every subject, and was considered the equal of the great Plato and Aristotle. But he never founded a school, and so his ideas never had quite the same impact as Plato’s and Aristotle’s on later civilization.
Democritus was quite skeptical of sense data, and introduced the idea of secondary qualities: Things like color and sound and taste are more in your mind than in the thing itself. Further, he said that sensations are a matter of atoms falling on the sense organs, and that all the senses are essentially forms of touch.
He also introduced the idea that we identify qualities by convention -- i.e. we call sweet things “sweet,” and that is what leads us to group them together, not some quality of the things themselves. This is called the nominalism, from the Latin word for name. This way of thinking doesn't show up again till the late Middle Ages.

The soul or mind, he said, is composed of small, smooth, round atoms, a lot like fire or energy atoms, and can be found throughout the bodies of both humans and animals, and even the rest of the world.
Happiness comes from acquiring knowledge and ultimately wisdom. Sensual pleasure is way too short-lived and fickle to depend on. Instead, the wise man or woman should seek peace of mind (ataraxia) through cheerfulness, moderation, and orderly living. His moral theory is based on the sense of integrity: “A man should feel more shame in doing evil before himself than before all the world.”
Democritus did not believe in gods nor an afterlife. In fact, he formed an atheist organization called the Kakodaimoniotai -- “the devils club.” He is sometimes called the laughing philosopher, because he found life much more cheerful without what he considered to be the depressing superstitions of religion.
He took Leucippus’ materialism very seriously, noting that matter can never be created nor destroyed, that there were an infinity of worlds like our own, and that there was no such thing as chance -- only causation. It would be many centuries before these ideas would again become popular.
[Only registered and activated users can see links] little older than Democrates was Protagorus (480-411), also of Abdera. He is the most famous of the group of philosophers known as the sophists. The word comes from the Greek sophistai, which means teachers of wisdom -- i.e. professor. Because some of these professors taught little more than how to win arguments in court, and did so for exorbitant fees, the name has become somewhat derogatory. Sophistry now means argument for argument’s sake, or for the sake of personal gain. But then, it is also the root of the word sophisticated!
Protagorus, although his teaching fees were in fact high, was a serious philosopher. He can be credited with founding the science of grammar, being the first to distinguish the various conjugations of verbs and declensions of nouns. He was also a major contributor to logic and was using the Socratic method (teaching by question and answer) before Socrates.
He was a skeptic, and believed that there were no ultimate truths, that truth is a relative, subjective thing. “Man is the measure of all things,” is his most famous quote, meaning that things are what we say they are.
Applying this skepticism to the gods, he scared the Athenian powers-that-be, and he was ordered to leave Athens. Apparently, he drowned on his way to Sicily.
Into this idea-rich environment would come the three Athenians that would come to dominate philosophy for the next 2000 years: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

:heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart:

Fallacies
Fallacies are arguments that may sound logical, but are not. When you look at some of the examples below, you may see some with conclusions you agree with and some you don't. But the truth, in the empirical sense, is not what is at issue: What these examples are all about is logical argument. All these examples are illogical and based in fallacious thinking.

For example, one fallacy is called "sweeping generalization." Someone may argue: "That is the richest sorority on campus; so Sue, who belongs to that sorority must be one of the richest women on campus." Well, Sue may be one of the richest; or she may be one of the poorest. It doesn't matter whether the conclusion is true or not in the literal sense. The argument is illogical. It means nothing at all to say that, if a group has a certain quality, then a member of the group must have that quality, too.

Probably everyone has been guilty of inadvertently using them. Most of us fall for them even if we know better. And there are some people (propogandists, advertisers, and many politicians) who use them all the time. It would be wise to become familiar with the fallacies in order to protect ourselves from the unscrupulous. But by no means is this list meant to encourage the use of fallacies!

Affirmation of the consequent: "A implies B, B is true, therefore A is true"
"If the universe had been created by a supernatural being, we would see order and organization everywhere. And we do see order, not randomness -- so it's clear that the universe had a creator." (No: The order could have some other origin.)

"If there is indeed a collective unconscious, then we will find that the mythologies of all the world’s cultures have profound commonalities. And indeed they do -- therefore, there must be a collective unconscious!" (No: There may be all sorts of other reasons for mythologies to have commonalities.)
This is the converse of denial of the antecedent (below).
A slight variation of affirming the consequent is converting a conditional: "If A then B, therefore if B then A".
"When educational standards are lowered, the quality of shows on television worsens. So if we see television getting worse over the next few years, we'll know that our educational standards are still falling." (No: The worsening of television could have other causes.)

"If the latest drugs work well, we will see a great improvement n mental health. So, if mental health improves, we will know that these drugs were effective!" (No again! Mental health may improve for other reasons.)
This fallacy is similar to the affirmation of the consequent, but phrased as a conditional statement.
Denial of the antecedent: "A implies B, A is false, therefore B is false"
"If the God of the Bible appeared to me, personally, that would certainly prove that Christianity was true. But God has never appeared to me, so the Bible must be a work of fiction." (Nope: God may not appear to you even if the Bible were true.)

"If there were such a thing as penis envy, we would expect women to be easier on their sons than on their daughters. But penis envy is, of course, not real -- so naturally women do not treat their sons better than their daughters." (No: They may still do so, just for other reasons.)
This is the converse of the fallacy of affirmation of the consequent.
There is also a version that says “if A, then B, therefore, if not A, then not B.”
“If you have a PhD in psychology, you must be pretty knowledgeable in the field. Therefore, if you don’t have the PhD, you must be abysmally ignorant of psychology.” (No: Having that PhD may mean you have knowledge, but knowledge hardly depends on a degree.)

Fallacy of composition: the idea that a property shared by a number of individual items, is also shared by a collection of those items; or that a property of the parts of an object, must also be a property of the whole thing.
"This new truck is made entirely of lightweight aluminum components, and is therefore very lightweight." In fact, a truck is composed of so many “lightweight” parts, it is bound to be far from lightweight itself!
Note that ton of feathers does NOT weigh less than a ton of lead!
"Since neurons are either excitatory or inhibitory, the brain itself must have basically excitatory or inhibitory states."
A variation of composition is the genetic fallacy: Drawing a conclusion about the goodness or badness of something on the basis of the goodness or badness of the thing’s origin. E.g. "The medicine made from that plant must be poisonous, because that plant is poisonous." (not actually ad hominem -- see below -- but often listed there)
"The humanitarian work we do may well come out of our need to look good in front of our fellow man. So humanitarian work is basically egotistical!"
The opposite of the fallacy of composition is the fallacy of division: assuming that a property of some thing must apply to its parts;or that a property of a collection of items is shared by each item.
“Humans are conscious and are made of cells; therefore, each cell has consciousness”
"You are studying at a rich college. Therefore you must be rich."
"Since the team could solve the problem so easily, I assume that each member of the team could do it just as well alone."
And a fallacy that totally confuses parts and wholes: the fallacy of the undistributed middle: Suggesting that things are in some way similar, but not actually specifing how. A is a kind of C, B is a kind of C, therefore, A is B
"Cats are a form of animal based on carbon chemistry, dogs are a form of animal based on carbon chemistry, so aren't dogs and cats basically identical?"
“They’re both students, so I can expect the same from both.”
"Since they are both schizophrenics, they should both have the same reaction to this new medication."

Sweeping generalization (The fallacy of accident, dicto simpliciter): Applying a general rule to special case; A general rule is applied to a particular situation, but the features of that particular situation mean the rule is inapplicable.
"Christians generally dislike atheists. You are a Christian, so you must dislike atheists."
Sweeping generalization includes a common misunderstanding the nature of statistics:
“The majority of people in the United States die in hospitals, so stay out of them.”
"Men are statistically more aggressive than women. Therefore, I, a male, must be more aggressive than you, a female."
Hasty generalization is the converse of sweeping generalization: A special case is used as the basis of a general rule. A general rule is created by examining only a few specific cases which aren't representative of all possible cases.
"I know a union representative and he's a terrible person. I wouldn't trust any of them."
"Jim Bakker was an insincere Christian. Therefore all Christians are insincere."
"This schizophrenic has paranoid delusions. It stands to reason that they all do."
Hasty generalization includes another common misunderstanding of statistics called the statistics of small numbers:
“My parents smoked all their lives and they never got cancer.”
"The five subjects in our experiment responded well to our intervention. We can therefore recommend the procedure to everyone."
Another version is called observational selection: pointing out favorable circumstances while ignoring the unfavorable. For example, at any gambling institution, a great deal of fuss is paid to those who win, while those who lose are quietly encouraged to sneak out the back. This way, winning seems much more likely that it is!
"All of these people who prayed for a cure survived their disease. Prayer is clearly to be recommended!"
And observational selection includes anecdotal evidence:
“Just last week I read about a girl who was dying of cancer. Her whole family went to church and prayed for her, and she was cured. That only proves the power of prayer!"
"Uncle Joe got over his rheumatism by drinking his own urine!"
“Urban myths” are usually good examples!

Bifurcation ("black or white," excluded middle, false dichotomy): Presuming an either-or distinction. Suggesting that there are only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist. Instead of black or white, we can have shades of gray... or even rainbows of colors!
"We must choose between safety and freedom. And it is in the nature of good Americans to take the risk of freedom." Must we choose? Can't we have both?
"A patient either gets better or they don’t."
"Come on now-- is he or isn’t he bipolar?"
Considering only the extremes:
“He's either guilty or not guilty.”

Begging the question (petitio principii ). Assuming as a premise the conclusion which you wish to reach. Instead of offering real proof, we can just restate the conclusion we are supposed to come to, and hope the listener doesn't notice.
"Government ownership of public utilities is dangerous, because it is socialistic." But government ownership of public utilities is socialism. You've just been told that it's dangerous because it is what it is.
“We must encourage our youth to worship God to instill moral behavior.” But does religion and worship actually produce moral behavior? Of course not!

"Qualitative methods are essentially worthless because they don’t involve measurement or statistics."
The most obvious form of begging the question is the circular argument (vicious cycle, circulus in demonstrando): Stating in one's proof that which one is supposed to be proving.
"We know that God exists because the Bible tells us so. And we know that the Bible is true because it is the word of God."
"Your arguments against Freud are due to your unresolved unconscious conflicts."
"Your arguments against Skinner are due to your conditioning."
"Your arguments against existentialism are indicative of your inauthenticity."
There’s also the appeal to faith: Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought.
"If you accept the Lord, you will understand!"
"If you would only take Maslow at his word, you would finally get it!"
And the most common way to use begging the question is question-begging epithets (loaded words, emotive language, etc.). Restating the conclusion in "hot" language: "This criminal is charged with the most vicious crime known to man." Does it prove something, or just get the blood flowing?
Often hard to identify (and so very dangerous) is the ad hoc argument: Giving an after-the-fact explanation which doesn't apply to other situations.
“I see that John’s cancer is in remission.”
“Yes, our prayers have been answered!”
“But didn’t you pray for Susan, too, and look what happened to her.”
“I’m sure God had a special reason for taking her.”
"Those people who don’t follow the expected pattern of strong-mother/weak-father leading to homosexuality are no doubt hiding their true orientation!"
Look out when people say “everything has a reason” or “God has a purpose for all of us.”

Complex question (loaded question, trick question, leading question, fallacy of interrogation, fallacy of presupposition): Interrogative form of begging the question (above). Ask a question that leads others to believe that a previous question has been answered in a certain way.
"Answer yes or no: Did you ever give up your evil ways?" If you say yes, that tells us you had evil ways; if you say no, that tells us you still have them. What if you never had them?
“Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”
"So, are you ***, or just in denial?"
"And when will you come out of the closet?"
A variation on the complex question is the fallacy of many questions (plurium interrogationum) : This fallacy occurs when someone demands a simple (or simplistic) answer to a complex question.
"Yes or no: Is democracy ultimately the best system of government?"
Another form of this fallacy is to ask for an explanation of something which is untrue or not yet established.

False cause (non causa pro causa, non sequitur): Something is identified as the cause of an event, but it has not actually been shown to be the cause. For example:
"I took an aspirin and prayed to God, and my headache disappeared. So God cured me of the headache."
"Artists often suffered from depression as adolescents. So, if you want your child to be a great artist, don’t put them on Prozac!"
The most common form of false cause is called post hoc ergo propter hoc: An inference or conclusion that does not follow from established premises or evidence. Assuming causal connections that haven't been demonstrated. The Latin phrase means "after this, therefore because of this."
"You should go to Harvard, because Harvard graduates make more money." Or could it be that they had more money before they went?
“She got sick after she visited China, so something in China caused her sickness.” Or could it be that she was sick prior to leaving for China?
“There was an increase of births during the full moon. Therefore, full moons cause birth rates to rise.”
A slight variation is cum hoc ergo propter hoc: Saying that, because two events occur together, they must be causally related. It's a fallacy because it ignores all the other possible causes of the events.
"Literacy rates have steadily declined since the advent of television. Clearly television viewing impedes learning."
"He started using drugs just about the time he started seeing that girl. I knew she was a bad influence!"
A common statistical version of this is confusion of correlation and causation: correlation cannot tell you anything about the direction of causality. If X is powerfully correlated with Y, X could be the cause of Y, Y could be the cause of X, or (most likely) something else is the cause of both. Possibly, the relationship is accidental!
“More chess players are men, therefore, men make better chess players than women.”
"Far more women than men suffer from depression. We can assume that there is something about a woman’s physiology that leads to depression."
(Often followed by an ad hoc argument: The men with depression must in some way be effeminate!)

Missing the point (irrelevant thesis, ignoratio elenchi, irrelevant conclusion, ignoring the issue, befogging the issue, diversion, red herring, etc.). Demonstrating a point other than the one at issue. Diverting attention by changing the subject. Escaped convicts in Elizabethan England would smear themselves with rotten (red) herring to throw the dogs off the scent.
"I fail to see why hunting should be considered cruel when it gives tremendous pleasure to many people and employment to even more." So we should stop talking about cruelty and start talking about pleasure and employment?
“Christianity is the only true religion: It has clearly been of great help to many people." No matter how well he argues how much it has helped people, he will not have shown that Christian teachings are true.
"It is very clear that we prescribe psychoactive medications to people who don’t really need them. We should outlaw these drugs altogether!"
One example is the straw man: Creating a false scenario and then attacking it. Misrepresenting someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily.
“Evolutionists think that everything came about by random chance. How could that be?” Most evolutionists think in terms of natural selection which may involve incidental elements, but does not depend entirely on random chance. Painting your opponent with false colors only deflects the purpose of the argument.
"To summarize Freud, he believed that it all boils down to sex. Let me show you why Freud is therefore full of crap!"
Another example is reification (hypostatization): when people treat an abstract concept or hypothetical construct as if it represented a concrete event or physical entity.
IQ tests are often presented as actual measures of intelligence, for example.
"What is consciousness? You can’t find it anywhere in the human brain, so we must reject the concept."
And another example, the meaningless question:
“How high is up?” "Up" describes a direction, not a measurable entity.
“Does anything really exist?”
"How can we experience the collective unconscious directly?"
A really tricky version of missing the point is the appeal to logic (argumentum ad logicam ): This is the "fallacy fallacy" of arguing that a proposition is false because it has been presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument. Remember that fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions.
"Take the fraction 16/64. Now, cancelling a six on top and a six on the bottom, we get that 16/64 = 1/4."
"Wait a second! You can't just cancel the six! Your math is wrong: 16/64 does not equal 1/4!"
Yes it does, even though the math is wrong.
Very common are half truths (suppressed evidence): An statement usually intended to deceive that omits some of the facts necessary for an accurate description.
And one of the worst versions of missing the point is false analogy: An analogy or metaphor illustrates or elaborates; it doesn't prove anything: "The American Indian had to make way for Western civilization; after all, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs." Are the lives and cultures of millions comparable to eggs? What does making omelettes have to do with history and morality?
"Since the mind is essentially a wet computer, our task is to figure out how we can best program it!"

There are many fallacies that involve the misuse of words.
Very common is special pleading: Here, we use a double-standard of words.
"The ruthless tactics of the enemy, his fanatical, suicidal attacks have been foiled by the stern measures of our commanders and the devoted self-sacrifice of our troops." Are ruthless tactics different from stern measures? Fanatical, suicidal attacks from devoted self-sacrifice?
"Ellis’s therapy is authoritarian and aggressive!"
"Rogers’s therapy is laissez faire, even lazy!"
This is not far from the fallacy of equivocation: Use of ambiguous words. A key word is used with two or more different meanings in the same argument. Shifting the meaning of the words.
"What could be more affordable than free software? But to make sure that it remains free, that users can do what they like with it, we must place a license on it to make sure that will always be freely redistributable."
One way to avoid this fallacy is to choose your terminology carefully before beginning the argument, and avoid words like "free" which have many meanings.
The "no true Scotsman..." fallacy: Suppose I assert that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. You counter this by pointing out that your friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge. I then say "Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. I basically limit the meaning of the word "Scotsman."

“How can he do that to her if he loves her?”
“Ah, but that’s not true love, see?”
"No caring therapist would use methods like that!"
"No well-trained scientist would come to those conclusions!"
"Christians turn the other cheek."
"But I've seen many Christians strike others."
"Yes, but those aren't good Christians. They aren't even real Christians at all!"
The previous example includes the use of accent -- changing oral stress within a sentence to alter the meaning.
“All men are created equal...” implies that women are not.
“All men are created equal...” suggests that they don’t end up equal.
An amusing misuse of words is amphiboly -- use of ambiguous sentences.
“Two pizzas for one special price.” Two for one? Or both at the same “special” price?

Personal attack (argumentum ad hominem):Attacks the person instead of the argument. In personal attack, we ask the listener not to consider the argument, but to consider where it is coming from:
"This theory about a new cure for cancer has been introduced by a man known for his Marxist sympathies. I don't see why we should extend him the courtesy of our attention."
"You can’t trust Freud -- he used cocaine!"
"You can’t trust Adler -- he was a socialist!"
"You can’t trust Horney -- she suffered from depression!"

But Marxists, cocain users, socialists, and depressed people can be right!

Then there’s the abusive form of the personal attack:
"You claim that atheists can be moral -- yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children."
"You don’t agree with experimentation? I’ve read that you were never able to get any of your own research published!"
A little more clever is the circumstantial form of the personal attack:
"It is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. Since you are wearing leather shoes, I am sure you won’t argue with that."
"You don’t agree with Rogers -- yet I notice you use reflection in your own practice!"
Very damaging is poisoning the well: The personal attack can also be used as an excuse to reject a particular conclusion such as when you allege that someone is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish reasons. You’ve “poisoned the well” in that, from now on, people will tend to doubt his arguments.
"Of course you'd argue that affirmative action is a bad thing. You're white."
Note that if someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. Liars can tell the truth!
"Don’t listen to her criticisms of existentialism -- she’s an experimentalist!"
And every teenagers favorite argument is called tu quoque (two wrongs make a right ): Latin for “you, too!” or "look who's talking!"
"If you think communal living is such a great idea, why aren't you living in a commune?"
"If psychology is so great, how come YOU have so many problems?"

“If smoking is so bad for you, why do you smoke?”
But even a smoker can know that it isn't good for you!
Appeal to the masses (argumentum ad populum, appealing to the people, mob appeal, appealing to the gallery, appeal to popular pieties). This involves theatrical appeals to our lowest instincts, such as selfishness, greed, jealousy, or vanity rather than facts and reasons.. "Because you are a college audience, I know I can speak to you about difficult matters seriously." Oh, well, thank you very much; please do go on!
"The enormous popularity of books on dream analysis alone suggests its validity!"
One example of appeal to the masses is the bandwagon fallacy (consensus gentium, argumentum ad numerum): concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it.
“Most people believe in a god; therefore, it must be true.” Simply because many people may believe something says nothing about the fact of that something. Once upon a time, everyone thought the earth was flat!
"All I'm saying is that millions of people believe in astrology, so there must be something to it."
"Everyone is moving into cognitive style research -- there must be something to it!"
Argument from omniscience: The "everybody" version of the preceding.
"Everyone knows that men and women are psychologically the same!"
“People need to believe in something. Everyone knows that.” Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything."

Appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): This is where we bring up famous people, reference groups, science, tradition, religion, universality....
“Professor Boeree says behaviorism is dead.” Simply because an authority says something does not necessarily mean it's correct.
The great philosopher Santayana said “Those who remain ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.” But Henry Ford said “History is bunk!” So who is right?
"Freud said.... -- and who are we to argue with a genius of his caliber?"
This includes the famous technique called snob appeal: "Camel filters. They're not for everybody!”
"All those who can afford it prefer Freudian therapy!"
Variations include appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem): This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it's old, or because "that's the way it's always been."
Just because people practice a tradition, says nothing about whether it is true. See, for example, astrology, slavery, superstition, human sacrifice....
"Psychologists have always agreed that...."
The opposite is called appeal to novelty (argumentum ad novitatem): The fallacy of asserting that something is better or more correct simply because it is new, or newer than something else.
“It’s the latest!”
“Windows 99 is much better than Windows 95. How could it not be, coming after so many years of experience!”
"The most recent studies show that...."
Appeal to riches (argumentum ad crumenam): The fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctness; that those with more money are more likely to be right, or that something that costs more is intrinsically better.
"Microsoft software is undoubtedly superior; why else would Bill Gates have gotten so rich?"
“It costs twice as much -- it must be twice as good!” "Indeed. You get what you pay for!" Do you?
"I’ll have to side with the psychiatrists. After all, they make more money than the PhD psychologists!"
The opposite is appeal to poverty (argumentum ad lazarum): The fallacy of assuming that someone poor is sounder or more virtuous than someone who's wealthier, or that something inexpensive or plain is somehow naturally better. For example:
"Monks are more likely to possess insight into the meaning of life, as they have given up the distractions of wealth."
“A simple loaf of bread, made lovingly by hand -- what could be better?”
"Since John does so much of his work pro bono, he must be a much more honest therapist."

Appeal to nature (the natural law fallacy): Arguing that, because human beings are products of the natural world, we must mimic behavior seen in the natural world, and that to do otherwise is 'unnatural'. A common fallacy in political arguments.
"The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources. Capitalism, the competitive struggle for ownership of capital, is simply an inevitable part of human nature. It's how the natural world works."
"Of course homosexuality is unnatural. When's the last time you saw two animals of the same sex mating?" (Actually, that’s much more common than people think! But that, too, is irrelevant.)
"Our attraction to 'beautiful' people parallels the instincts of birds and mammals. Love, therefore, is nothing but an instinct!"

Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam): This is an appeal to your tender emotions, your sympathy: Listen, if you can bear it, to any telethon. Or listen to advertisements that try to sell computers to parents.
"You wouldn't want your kids to be left behind on the information super-highway, would you? What kind of parent are you anyway?"
"I did not murder my mother and father with an axe! Please don't find me guilty; I'm suffering enough through being an orphan.”
"Qualitative methods are used by a small group of dedicated researchers working in a hostile environment of experimentalism."

Appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam, argumentum ex silentio): Arguing that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or arguing that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true. That is, my position is right because there is no evidence against it. Or yours is wrong because there is no evidence for it.
“We have no evidence that God doesn't exist. Therefore, he must exist.”
"There is intelligent life in outer space, for no one has been able to prove that there isn't." Fact of the matter is, you can't prove the non-existence of something: No matter how hard you look, I can always say you haven't looked hard enough. Go ahead: Prove to me that unicorns don't exist!
"We don’t know whether holistic medicines actually help psychological disorders, so we might as well use them!" (Followed by a pity argument: Would you deny people the chance of getting better, just because there’s no evidence?)
A common accompaniment to the appeal to ignorance is shifting the burden of proof: The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion.
So, when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove him wrong.
“Prove God doesn't exist, then!”
“Prove UFO's aren't real, then!”
"I believe that homosexuality is based on biological differences -- I dare you to prove me wrong!"

Appeal to fear (argumentum ad baculum, appeal to force): Don't argue with me, it's dangerous!
"If you do not convict this murderer, one of you may be his next victim." A similar argument is frequently used in deodorant ads.
“If you don't believe in God, you'll burn in hell”
"You better learn your stats: You’ll never be able to get your doctorate if you don’t!"
A little more subtle is the argument from adverse consequences:
“The accused must be found guilty, otherwise others will commit similar crimes”
And a common variation is the slippery slope: Arguing that a change in procedure, law, or action, will result in adverse consequences.
“Give ‘em an inch, and they’ll take a mile!”
“Pass the equal rights for women amendment and before you know it, we’ll all be using unisex bathrooms!”
"If we legalize marijuana, then more people would start to take crack and heroin, and we'd have to legalize those too. Before long we'd have a nation full of drug-addicts on welfare. Therefore we cannot legalize marijuana."
“If we allow doctor assisted suicide, then eventually the government will control how we die.” It does not necessarily follow that just because we make changes that a slippery slope will occur.
"If you start people on Prozac, they will become dependent on it, then on drugs in general, and never learn to deal with their problems on their own!"

Argumentum ad nauseam: This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true, or is more likely to be accepted as true, the more often it is heard. So an Argumentum ad Nauseam is one that employs constant repetition in asserting something; saying the same thing over and over again until you're sick of hearing it. See almost any commercial, or take a look at the practice of having children memorizing Bible verses.
"Classical conditioning must be at the root of all learning -- I had that drummed into my head at Penn State!"
“All my life, people have told me: a man doesn’t show weakness!”


:heart:

Spinoza’s Emotions
i. Desire is the essence of man insofar as it is conceived as determined to any action by any one of its modifications. [I.e., when there is change, we become motivated, and that is called desire.]
ii. Joy is man’s passage from a less to a greater perfection. [We feel joy when we improve our abilities to deal with what life hands us.]
iii. Sorrow is man’s passage from a greater to a less perfection. [We feel sorrow when we find we are not able to deal with life.]

iv. Love is joy with the accompanying idea of an external cause. [When something, or someone, gives us joy, we feel love towards that thing or person.]
v. Hatred is sorrow with the accompanying idea of an external cause. [When something, or someone, gives us sorrow, we feel hatred towards that thing or person.]

vi. Hope is a joy not constant, arising from the idea of something future or past about the issue of which we sometimes doubt. [When we detect the possibility of joy in an otherwise uncertain situation, we feel hope.]
vii. Fear is a sorrow not constant, arising from the idea of something future or past about the issue of which we sometimes doubt. [When we detect the possibility of sorrow in an uncertain situation, we feel fear.]

viii. Confidence is a joy arising from the idea of a past or future object from which cause for doubting is removed. [Confidence happens when hope conquers fear.]
ix. Despair is sorrow arising from the idea of a past or future object from which cause for doubting is removed. [Despair happens when fear overwhelms hope.]

x. Gladness is joy with the accompanying idea of something past which, unhoped for, has happened. [Gladness is the recognition that things have gone well.]
xi. Remorse is sorrow with the accompanying idea of something past which, unhoped for, has happened. [Remorse is the recognition that things have gone wrong. It might include regret and even guilt, if we had some responsibility in the matter.]

xii. Favor is love toward those who have benefited others. [It is the appreciation we feel towards good people.]
xiii. Indignation is hatred toward those who have injured others. [It is the hatred we feel towards bad people.]

xiv. Overestimation consists of thinking too highly of another person in consequence of our love for him. [This might include infatuation.]
xv. Contempt consists in thinking too little of another person in consequence of our hatred for him. [To have contempt for someone is the same as despising them.]

xvi. Envy is hatred in so far as it affects a man so that he is sad at the good fortune of another person and is glad when any evil happens to him. [Envy may include jealousy and lead to spitefulness.]
xvii. Compassion is love in so far as it affects a man so that he is glad at the prosperity of another person and is sad when any evil happens to him. [This, which many would call love, is no doubt the most worthy emotion.]

xviii. Self-satisfaction is the joy which is produced by contemplating ourselves and our own power of action. [Today, we might refer to this as self-esteem or self-worth.]
xix. Humility is the sorrow which is produced by contemplating our impotence or helplessness. [Although humility sounds negative, it involves a realistic understanding of our limitations.]

xx. Pride is thinking too much of ourselves, through self-love. [We often use the word to mean something positive, but traditionally pride is undeserved or excessive self-esteem.]
xxi. Despondency is thinking too little of ourselves through sorrow. [This corresponds to that unrealistic sense of guilt that plagues so many people.]

xxii. Self-exaltation is joy with the accompanying idea of some action which we imagine people praise. [Self-esteem based on others’ opinions of particular behaviors.]
xxiii. Shame is sorrow with the accompanying idea of some action which we imagine people blame. [Like humility, but based on others’ opinions of particular behaviors. We call it guilt if it is entirely internalized.]

xxiv. Benevolence is the desire to do good to those whom we pity.
xxv. [B]Anger is the desire by which we are impelled, through hatred, to injure those whom we hate. [Anger is the emotion behind aggression. It includes the desire for revenge.]


**From Spinoza's Ethics (Elwes, Trans.)