THE MYSTERIOUS WORLD. THE BERMUDA TRIANGLE. PT 1.

Example of a story, that emphasizes the Paranormal Normal reputation of this "Area" located in the Atlantic Ocean.( Fictional, but it includes many things in common with the typical BERMUDA TRIANGLE STORY, MYTH, LEGEND etc..)

MISSING SHIP FOUND.

BOSTON, MA. Dec, 2.

On November 23rd, Captain Bernard Wallace, Master of the Brig JUPITER, claims to have found the missing Schooner ALBATROSS, adrift some 75 Nautical Miles South/Southwest of Bermuda. 

The ALBATROSS was due into Port on, or around Nov. 18th.

No one was found aboard, although the ship showed no signs of foundering.

''Tis a queer thing," Captain reported to Maritime Officials in Boston, upon arriving in port two days ago.

The Captain also stated that;  "We had just turned into the wind, when she was spotted off the Starboard Foredeck.  Since it was mid-day, under clear skies, we were able to make her out pretty clearly.  She was under close- trimmed sails, but  not following any course I could make out.  We approached as close as possible, and were able to make out her out as ALBATROSS."

Captain Wallace went on to further report, "We hailed her for a good twenty minutes, but received no response.  Stranger yet, her decks were clear of any life that we could see.  The crew made no appearance."

Boston officials asked Wallace what he did next.

"I ordered my First Mate, Mr. Martin, to take the Launch and a boarding  party of three men, and search the vessel for any sign of life, or possible reasons for abandonment."

The following was taken from the narrative and testimony of Donald Martin, First Mate on the JUPITER.

"In odedience to the Captains orders, Myself and three of the crew, brought the Launch alongside the ALBATROSS.  Leaving one man in the Launch, Me and my two other shipmates secured the line to port side aft railing of the ship, and climbed aboard to start the inspection."

END PT1.

LOGIC. IT'S NOT JUST FOR VULCANS, AND VIEWERS OF "THE BIG BANG THEORY." #2.

How many times have you heard or read something similar to the following;

Question:  What do you think of Obamacare?  Do you think the Affordable Care Act is good for the Nation?

Sometimes you'll get answers like the following;

"Another Government Program promoted by our Socialist President."

                                         or

"As usual, the Republican Party is trying to block anything that 

doesn't benefit the Rich."

While the answers above are from both sides of the Political Spectrum, they

are examples of perhaps the most common type of Logical Fallacy:

AD HOMINEM-  WHICH TRANSLATES, "TO THE PERSON."  

Basically, it is when a judgment is made about a Law, Program or Activity etc, 

not on the merits of the specific subject, but on the person or persons promoting or criticizing it.

In the above example, the question is asking for an opinion about Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act.  In neither answer is there any reference to the new Health Care Law, on whether or not it is a good or desirable program.  Instead the comments are directed at the President and the Republican Party.  This type of answer imparts no useful information, and generally means;

-  That the responder probably doesn't really know why they are either for or against Universal Health Care.

-  That they have not gathered enough information to make an informed decision.

-  They are accepting at face value what is being said or written about in the Media Outlet of their choice.

In the end, society will reap the kind of reward it deserves, and that may be the consequence of how much effort the average American takes to understand the Laws and Policies that impact society as a whole.

(ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON 3/31/2014)

LOGIC. WHAT ARE DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS? PART 1.

You Have Probably Heard These Terms Used Many Times.

Perhaps it was the Classroom, Job Site, or even Television/Movies.

However, were they used Correctly?  

To Introduce this Section, Let's Start with a Couple of Examples.

In a Valid Deductive Argument, if the Premises are True,

THE CONCLUSION MUST BE TRUE.

Here is an Example of a Valid Deductive Argument;

All Politicians are Deceitful People.

All Deceitful People can't be Trusted.

Therefore, All Politicians can't Be Trusted.

Now a Valid Inductive Argument;

Most Politicians Never Tell the Truth.

Our Congressman Promises to Not Raise Taxes.

Therefore, Our Congressman will Probably Raise Taxes.

An Inductive Argument Points to the Probability of the 

Conclusion Being True, but it is not a Certainty.

IN THE NEXT POST ON THIS TOPIC, WE'LL EXAMINE SUCH

TERMS AS VALID/INVALID, WHICH INDICATE IF THE ARGUMENT 

IS LAID OUT, OR CONSTRUCTED CORRECTLY.  THAT, AND WHY 

EXAMINING THE TRUTH OF THE PREMISES IS THE KEY TO 

EVALUATING THE STRENGTH OR WEAKNESS OF EACH ARGUMENT.

(ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON 7/8/2015)

FEATURE ARTICLES. THE HATE CHRONICLES. THE KEYS TO UNDERSTANDING THE MINDSET, MOTIVATIONS, AND GOALS OF THE FAR RIGHT FANATIC. #1.

It is a mistake for Progressives to think that those who make up

the Most Conservative Elements of the "NEW REPUBLICAN PARTY"

ARE ALL CUT FROM THE SAME CLOTH. WHILE THEY MAY VOTE 

AS A BLOC, THE PRIMARY MOTIVATION DIFFERS FROM GROUP 

TO GROUP.

While They are usually Packaged Together, ULTRA CONSERVATIVE

POLITICIANS HAVE REALIZED THAT FINDING THE ONE KEY

ISSUE THAT DRIVES CERTAIN GROUPS OF VOTERS TO THE POLLS, 

OFTEN WILL TURN THEM INTO LOYAL ALLIES, who will support an agenda 

full of Issues They may care little about.

It could be GUN CONTROL, SAME- SEX MARRIAGE, GOVERNMENT SPENDING, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, IMMIGRATION LAWS,REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE etc. THE STRATEGY IS TO PUT FORTH AN UNCOMPROMISING, RIGID, AND VITRIOLIC POINT OF VIEW ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE, APPEALING TO THE BASER ELEMENTS OF HUMAN NATURE.

THE REASON: TO LEARN OF THE ONE ISSUE THAT EACH SECTION OF INDIVIDUAL VOTERS MOST IDENTIFIES WITH, AND MANIPULATE IT TO THEIR ADVANTAGE.

IT'S A TACTIC THAT REQUIRES NO INTELLECTUAL EFFORT ON THE PART 

OF THE LISTENER. THERE IS NO NEED TO UNDERSTAND, OR EVEN CARE

ABOUT THE OPPOSITIONS POINT OF VIEW. IT PLAYS ON RAW EMOTION,

WITHOUT THE NEED FOR CONTEMPLATION OR REFLECTION.

THE INDIVIDUAL IS ENCOURAGED NOT TO THINK ABOUT AN INTELLECTUAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE OPINION THEY ARE SUPPORTING, BUT TO REACT TO THE WORDS OF THE AUTHOR AND\OR SPEAKER, AND ACCEPTING THE MESSAGE AS TRUE, AND WORTHY OF SUPPORT.  THIS, IN TURN, ENCOURAGES AGREEMENT WITH OTHER OPINIONS THAT ARE EXPRESSED THE SAME WAY.

(ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON 7/12/2016)