Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2024 July 24
| Miscellaneous desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < July 23 | << Jun | July | Aug >> | July 25 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
July 24
editLooking for one book
editLooking for one book. I only remember the beginning of the piece. Some guy found a derelict computer, sat down at it and started doing something, and then he saw a man with a gun walk up to the desk, they looked at each other in silence for a while, then the guy mechanically pressed the Enter button and the man shot him back. The work was read in the 1990s or very early 2000s. The piece appeared no later than the 1990s (probably earlier). I also remember that the guy was doing something enthusiastically on the computer: at first he typed without looking at the screen, but the message on the computer monitor made him do his work more slowly and carefully. The phrases went something like this. The message on the computer screen made him work more carefully. Behind the desk stood a man with a gun in his hand. The guy had never seen a real gun, except in the movies, but he knew immediately what it was. The guy's hand dropped mechanically to the Enter button, and the same second the black muzzle of the gun burst into flames, ending his life. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 08:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, was this a novel, occupying a full printed volume, or a shorter work, perhaps the first story in a collection or anthology? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.67.235 (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't remember. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I can sympathize with your search for this story, as I myself have posted here (it's in the archives I believe) about a story I've been trying to track down since the late 1980s that I still can't find and it's just about driving me mad. I have to say, what you are describing sounds remarkably like Philip K. Dick. I wonder if searching for all the writers who have similar works to him (or who knew him or were in his circle) would lead to results. Check out Category:Philip K. Dick scholars, a category I created. That might produce an answer. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Viriditas Okay, I'll try, if I find it, I'll tell you, but without a specific work it's quite labor-intensive to search. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- I can sympathize with your search for this story, as I myself have posted here (it's in the archives I believe) about a story I've been trying to track down since the late 1980s that I still can't find and it's just about driving me mad. I have to say, what you are describing sounds remarkably like Philip K. Dick. I wonder if searching for all the writers who have similar works to him (or who knew him or were in his circle) would lead to results. Check out Category:Philip K. Dick scholars, a category I created. That might produce an answer. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't remember. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
What is the name of this fallacy?
editWhat is the name of this fallacy?
1-A perfect man has the characteristics A, B and C.
2-Womans dont like a man with all the characteristics A, B and C.
3-So womans dont like a perfect man.
The problem here is that being perfect is about the result, if a woman dont like man X, he is not perfect, no matter what characteristics he has.
The fallacy implies having the characteristics A, B and C makes you perfect man, and then since this "A, B, C characteristics" man is not wanted by a girl, girls dont like perfect man.177.207.110.196 (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- See Fallacy of composition, Faulty generalization and Stereotyping. Modocc (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- The English sentences are somewhat ambiguous. "A man" can mean "some man" or "every man". Take the following syllogism:
- Every perfect man has all the characteristics A, B and C.
- There is no man with all the characteristics A, B and C who is liked by women.
- Therefore, there is no perfect man who is liked by women.
- In this form, it is IMO a valid syllogism. --Lambiam 16:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree the wording is ambiguous. I interpreted it the same as you at first. But they added an additional condition below that; "if a woman dont like man X, he is not perfect", which means there is an additional statement: "2.5. Every perfect man is liked by women". The result of 1, 2, and 2.5 is "3A. Therefore, there are no perfect men". This, too, is logically consistent, and not a fallacy. Maybe the reason the original set of statements seems like a fallacy is that 1, 2 (and 2.5) are not really consistent with real life. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I read "The problem here is that being perfect is about the result, if a woman dont like man X, he is not perfectt, no matter what characteristics he has." not as an additional statement to the syllogism, but as a rebuttal of it, implying that their first statement meant "some man" is "A perfect man...". Modocc (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I find it difficult to interpret the sentence explaining the perceived problem with the syllogism, especally the part "being perfect is about the result" – the result of what, and why is that problematic? The best I can come up with for the rest of the sentence is that there is an additional premise:
- 4. A man who is not liked by some woman is not perfect.
- Taking being liked by women to be a yes-or-no predicate, combining this prenise with the earlier conclusion 3 allows us to deduce that no man is perfect. --Lambiam 22:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- The OP also wrote "The fallacy implies having the characteristics A, B and C makes you perfect man..." which confirms that not all men with these characteristics are perfect, only some are, which is why its conclusion is a hasty generalization. Modocc (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- The fallacy would include the assumption that A, B and C are sufficient to define perfection. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- The OP also wrote "The fallacy implies having the characteristics A, B and C makes you perfect man..." which confirms that not all men with these characteristics are perfect, only some are, which is why its conclusion is a hasty generalization. Modocc (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I find it difficult to interpret the sentence explaining the perceived problem with the syllogism, especally the part "being perfect is about the result" – the result of what, and why is that problematic? The best I can come up with for the rest of the sentence is that there is an additional premise:
- I read "The problem here is that being perfect is about the result, if a woman dont like man X, he is not perfectt, no matter what characteristics he has." not as an additional statement to the syllogism, but as a rebuttal of it, implying that their first statement meant "some man" is "A perfect man...". Modocc (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree the wording is ambiguous. I interpreted it the same as you at first. But they added an additional condition below that; "if a woman dont like man X, he is not perfect", which means there is an additional statement: "2.5. Every perfect man is liked by women". The result of 1, 2, and 2.5 is "3A. Therefore, there are no perfect men". This, too, is logically consistent, and not a fallacy. Maybe the reason the original set of statements seems like a fallacy is that 1, 2 (and 2.5) are not really consistent with real life. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
The OP's syllogism comes as sad news to any perfect mans hoping for admiration from womans but ordinary literate men and women need not feel affected. Philvoids (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Don't be a jerk to people whose first language isn't English. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I will explain myself better, when talking about a perfect man, the word perfect is about the results, a perfect man A if he wanted a woman B would be able to make her want to date him and not want to leave him and would love staying with him, all that with 100% certainty.
The fallacy comes from the fact that the person saying all that, is implying that having characteristics A, B and C makes you perfect, what makes someone perfect is the result and not the characteristics he has (unless some set of characteristics leads to him ALWAYS having the result and this is not the case with characteristics A, B and C alone). After seeing that a girl didnt wanted a guy with characteristics A, B and C (that he implied it meant the guy was perfect), he says that because of that it means girls wont like a perfect man.
Another example, lets imagine that assuming perfect play you can always wins chess as white, an related example would be.
1-A perfect chess player has the characteristics A, B and C.
2-A player with those characteristics playing as white lost the game.
3-This means being a perfect player doenst imply that you will win as white.
Again a perfect chess player is one that always win, he implies that some characteristics make some player perfect and assume something based at what happened with a player that has his own definition of perfect player.177.207.110.147 (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- For this to be a fallacy the conclusion 3 is either false or not implied, because being a perfect player means they win. Check. Then 2 someone with characteristics A, B and C loses. Check. The loser shares these characteristics with either all or some perfect players. Check. So 1 and 2 are not sufficient to conclude 3. Thus its a faulty generalization. Correct? Modocc (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- "For this to be a fallacy the conclusion 3 is either false or not implied". 3 is false.
- "The loser shares these characteristics with either all or some perfect players. " They dont share those characteristics with perfect players , the person saying thing 1 implied those characteristics make someone perfect, this came out of his own mind, one characteristic that would make someone perfect is to have the endgame tablebase up to 32 pieces (max amount of pieces you can have at chess) and also never misclick/mouse slip when playing chess (so the move he want to make and the move he make is the same) and also be able to move really fast (needed if they are playing fast time controls)177.207.110.147 (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- It can be a valid argument even if the 1st premise is false and the conclusion is wrong. See False premise. Modocc (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- With a false premise the argument is unsound. Modocc (talk) 02:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's a Fallacy of presumption. Modocc (talk) 03:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- "For this to be a fallacy the conclusion 3 is either false or not implied". 3 is false.
- The objection to the conclusion relies on a premise not given in the syllogism: that a perfect chess player always wins as white (or that the perfect man is liked by women). Since that's not a premise given in the syllogism, the conclusion is perfectly valid. --Avocado (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Perfectly valid sure but unsound, nevertheless, when its premise(s) are known to be false. Thus, it is an informal fallacy, and the name of the fallacy is what the OP requested and it's listed in the article as a fallacy of presumption. It's a fallacy that frequently occurs with paradigm shifts. Modocc (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)