by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Philosophy 115 RMB

WA Delegate: The State of Telgan (elected )

Founder: Dr george

Last WA Update:

World Factbook Entry

We are the #1 region in NationStates for approaching life rationally without unfounded assumptions. "This is the region in which NS does its thinking."
Region Founded 10 February 2005.
Link Forum | Link Blog | Link Regional Anthem | Formatting Codes | LinkNSEconomy | LinkFlag Generator | LinkNS Dossier II

Historic ambassador exchanges with:Free States of Gaia,Forest,Haiku,Gay,Futaba Aoi,The Atheist Empire,Hippy Haven,Scandinavia,Nudist Dreamland,Free Thought,The Bad Place,New Europe,Wonderful Paradise,Ulthar,The Maritimes,Konfoederation deutschsprachiger Staaten, Antichrist Superstar.
Philosophy 115 does not usually participate in roleplaying or the raider/defender aspects of NS (Halloween is an exception).
Featured Region on 21 July 2009.


Embassies: Forest, Haiku, The Skeleton Army, Futaba Aoi, Scandinavia, The Commonwealth Of Furry Peoples, Nudist Dreamland, 10000 Islands, Free Thought, Gay, Argentina, Israel, Hippy Haven, The Maritimes, United States of America, Deutschland, and 46 others.The SOP, Gay Equality, Groland, The Atheist Empire, The Sea Of Love, Eladen, Hell, Underworld, Nelborne Union, Texas, The Northern Lights, Konfoederation deutschsprachiger Staaten, Federation of Planets Headquarters, Equilism, The Alliance of Queens, The Rose Garden, The Socialist States of the Philippines, Kittens Sanctuary, Krillin, Hippiedom, Portugal, Right to Life, A Liberal Haven, Union of Free Nations, Future Earth, Association of the Countries of the Free, Philosophy 101, The Peaceful Coffee Shop In Chicago, Bus Stop, Heaven, Regionless, The Dank Meme Alliance, The Iceberg Lounge, Donald Trump Land, Democritus, Buddhism, Realm of Unrestricted Science, LGBT University, Anarchy, The Local Supermarket, Union of Allied States, Vermont, Union of Liberal Nations, The House at Pooh Corner, Krasnaya, and Philippines.

Tags: Feminist, Founderless, Independent, LGBT, Large, Liberal, Offsite Forums, Password, Serious, Social, and World Assembly.

Regional Power: Moderate

Philosophy 115 contains 58 nations, the 350th most in the world.

ActivityHistoryAdministration

Today's World Census Report

The Least Corrupt Governments in Philosophy 115

World Census agents tempted government officials with financial and other inducements to bend the rules and recorded how often their proposals were declined.

As a region, Philosophy 115 is ranked 23,090th in the world for Least Corrupt Governments.

NationWA CategoryMotto
1.The Tumbling Waves of Sunrise from the SeaLeft-wing Utopia“Who, being loved, is poor?”
2.The Allied States of Xandia SwiftCivil Rights Lovefest“Sit Wonder Imagine Free-Think”
3.The Commonwealth of Central KadiganLeft-wing Utopia“We are free and happy; but poor as dirt!”
4.The Alföldi Grand Duchy of Jurioo-ZalgirisCivil Rights Lovefest“Ei ole üksi ükski maa”
5.The State of TelganCivil Rights Lovefest“Bread for all ... before cake for anybody.”
6.The Constitutional Monarchy of Kingdom of CambriaLeft-wing Utopia“Lorem Ipsum allof Brfs Triu Dipof Lort au Brtnki Sonx”
7.The Penthouse Suite of Tango Hotel X-RayLiberal Democratic Socialists“A Land of Magical Dancing Electric Skeletons”
8.The Swirling Shining Splendor of Red Star of the WestScandinavian Liberal Paradise“Better Red than Dead”
9.The Most Serene Republic of KhelbInoffensive Centrist Democracy“Levez-vous ou levez jamais”
10.The Constitutional Monarchy of SybillatesDemocratic Socialists“Per aspera ad astra”
123456»

Regional Poll • Your least favourite red herring fallacy

The Name of The Rose wrote:If you like, give examples of encountering them on the RMB. If you like to join the conversation from outside the region, go ahead, embassy posting is enabled. Only a fraction of these fallacies fit into a poll. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Red_herring_fallacies

Voting opened 1 day 20 hours ago and will close . Open to all nations. You cannot vote as you are not logged in.

Recent polls: “Should Donald Trump have been convicted by the Senate?”“Should P115 created a password protected border?”

Regional Happenings

More...

Philosophy 115 Regional Message Board

Central Kadigan wrote:A bit of personal news to share. I made the most of the coronavirus slowdown to *finally* finish off my masters degree - Master of Science (M.Sc.) in Analytical Biochemistry. So nice to have it finished!

That's wonderful news!

Central Kadigan wrote:A bit of personal news to share. I made the most of the coronavirus slowdown to *finally* finish off my masters degree - Master of Science (M.Sc.) in Analytical Biochemistry. So nice to have it finished!

Congrats

Telgan wrote:I have created a TEMPORARY password for the region. I am sharing this with several people from the outset. Depending on the regional vote I WILL change the regional perference and consensus to that.

Whatever the outcome, I hope this is a temporary measure.

Thank you all.

This is a very prudent move. I will move my WA membership here as soon as possible, but I am currently assisting against a raider invasion in another region. Stay prepared.

Post self-deleted by Rizles Tri.

Central Kadigan wrote:A bit of personal news to share. I made the most of the coronavirus slowdown to *finally* finish off my masters degree - Master of Science (M.Sc.) in Analytical Biochemistry. So nice to have it finished!

Congratulations, CK. A great personal achievement and the hard work paying off. Wishing you the best of luck for the future. I would love to go back to be a student again. Lots of learning, reflecting and changing yourn previously held positions. Challenges us to be more open.

Central Kadigan wrote:A bit of personal news to share. I made the most of the coronavirus slowdown to *finally* finish off my masters degree - Master of Science (M.Sc.) in Analytical Biochemistry. So nice to have it finished!

Excellent. Wishing you a happy and successful career!

When you write job applications, remember there's a potential fallacy embedded in the process: We tend to stop taking samples as soon as an acceptable job offer appears. So usually, we get n rejections and just a few interviews, and 1 acceptable job. Unless we employ a headhunter to look for even better jobs for us while we're busy working, we usually don't have time to continue taking enough samples to find out what other jobs would also have been offered to us. :)

Reprise of the red herring poll:
page=poll/p=170195

I think I've enountered all of these red herring fallacies, much more in writing than in spoken conversation. (I don't tend to hang out with people who 'reason' like this.)

The Name of The Rose, the story, at its heart has a combination of 1. Appeal to authority and 5. Appeal to tradition. The motive for murder in the book goes something like this: We have been using authority figure X to corroborate certain traditions for a long time. If new evidence shows up, which suggests authority figure X undermining a cherished assertion - let's hide that evidence!

There are so many fallacious arguments to choose from. I suppose by looking at what we cannot stand, I wonder what type of arguments or relationaloties or logic really brings us into a conversation more than others? What is the most persuasive? Could be a new poll for after, Rose. ;).

I persoanlly detest appeals to tradition. Really if truth be told all are pet hates. But i suppose, if we are turly honest with ourselves, we have all made these mistakes in every day conversation or in a work setting. Most of the times, we try and either justify it or reason to ourselves in some other fashion to try and smooth over the otherwise congitive dissonance we experience. I am going to use a fallacy here from the list: we are only human and it is human nature. :).

Telgan wrote:I wonder what type of arguments or relationaloties or logic really brings us into a conversation more than others? What is the most persuasive? Could be a new poll for after, Rose. ;).

Haha, I can try! Or perhaps you or someone else?

I'd also be interested, on the formal side, what people's preferences for purely conversational polls here are:
1. How many days is a good poll duration?
2. How many days minimum between 2 polls by the same person? (So as not to accidentally monopolise.)
3. Limited to nations in Philosophy 115, open to all nations, no preference?

Telgan wrote:we have all made these mistakes

It's a good additional question: Which ones have we found ourselves most susceptible to?

Observing myself, I tend to be most susceptible to various combinations of 8. Bulverism and 10. Straw man. I question people's motivations a lot, so far that sometimes the (supposed) hidden motivation outshines the actual claim. However, a person can claim something that is, for example, to their own financial gain, or that feeds their own vanity, and the claim can still be realistic. Each claim needs to be looked at separately, and can't be dismissed right away because there's, for example, a financial or self-serving interest associated with it.

For example, it's quite possible that a person who is trying to sell something tells the truth about their product or service.

On the other hand, especially when confronted with perplexing or disturbing assertions, it can be quite useful to look for motivations behind them, instead of bothering only with surface claims.

Telgan wrote:smooth over the otherwise congitive dissonance we experience.

This tendency we have to smooth over dissonance doesn't need to be static. We like being comfortable, but we also have a capacity to endure cognitive discomfort, and to increase that endurance. Sometimes, not smoothing over dissonance can even save us from acute danger: Listen to warning bells, rather than reassure ourselves that everything's fine, because we want everything to be fine. We can live with not knowing many things. We can abstain from reassuring ourselves when questions remain open. In other words, we can train our ambiguity tolerance. But how?

Post self-deleted by Rizles Tri.

A kind of Bulverism can be a good thing. Since we've already had an example from The Name of the Rose, consider that the papal delegation comes to the debate to be held at the abbey to argue that Christ had possessions not for scriptural or theological reasons but because it seeks a rebuttal to criticisms of the increasing wealth of the church. The abbot is obsessed with glorifying God by filling the abbey with treasure. Crucifixes are being carved in which Christ is nailed by one hand with the other patting a pouch of gold on his belt. The Franciscan order is repulsed by such displays of earthly wealth and argues that the church should follow the example of the humility of Christ and the apostles, from which it's only a short jump to the violent apocalyptic sects that target wealth with violence. None of this has any direct bearing on the merit of the arguments that are brought to the debate, but if you ignore the context you fundamentally misunderstand the whole process.

You can set fire to a bishop's house because he is rich, William tells Adso, or because you do not believe in the hell that he preaches. It is always done because here on Earth there is a hell, where dwell the people of God whose shepherds we no longer are.

C.S. Lewis named Bulverism for an imaginary person whose destiny was set as a child when he heard his mother tell his father "You only say that because you're a man." Yet perhaps an appropriate response to patriarchy is not to engage rationally with every argument for the status quo but to fight back because some people do indeed say things because they are men, and more importantly because others tend to listen. I feel this may link back to my last post on the US Supreme Court, where political appointees construct legal arguments after the fact to support the outcome they wanted from the beginning.

Forum View

Advertisement