OFFICIAL 2011 DIFFICULTIES OF MAJORS (Brought to you by KFC)

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
ThomasMN
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:38 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 2011 DIFFICULTIES OF MAJORS (Brought to you by KFC)

Postby ThomasMN » Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:00 am

UML, your English department failed you in the realm of logical fallacies. An ad hominem attack can be fallacious for many reasons, but generally it is so through attempting to prove that someone's argument is wrong because of something that is wrong with the speaker: Jim is mean therefore Jim's argument must be false! How can you mess up the logical fallacy they make t-shirts out of?

User avatar
Blessedassurance
Posts: 2081
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:42 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 2011 DIFFICULTIES OF MAJORS (Brought to you by KFC)

Postby Blessedassurance » Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:08 am

The study of French and Arabic literature has just as much to do with logic as the study of English literature does. In fact, an English major is probably required to study work of Arabic or French origin. English papers typically require a person to put forth an opinion and defend it, which requires rhetoric, which requires argumentation, which requireslogic (...)especially informal logic, the kind that is relevant to the LSAT.


1. No
2. Notice how you disregarded the rules of thumb and still got your message across. If you're trying to prove a point through intentional misapplication, you're doing it wrong.
3. Your insistence on making logic an integral part of writing English papers broadens the term and renders it meaningless. Logic, if you're to be believed, is applicable to virtually any given major in the Liberal Arts, any given assignment with a research component etc.



I did argue from your assertions and I explicitly answered the question you asked. And you don't have to be a clairvoyant to reach my conclusions, you merely read what you wrote in this thread.


You categorically stated that people with a certain view fall under one of three categories, the first of which you were sure was applicable to my situation.

Ad Hominem? Please. If you would have majored in English perhaps you would know that an Ad Hominem attack is only fallacious if it is used as a tool to end a dialogue prematurely.


If majoring in English had taught you logic you would have known that a request to desist from ad hominem attacks is not necessarily symmetrical to an assertion that ad hominem necessarily constitutes a logical fallacy.


Do not think that by grammar I mean the eight parts of speech. Working to master grammatical rules is one part of being an English major, but it goes far beyond that...think more along the lines of Noam Chomsky's linguistic work.


Address this argument to the people saying "the major does not entail grammar". I believe my sanity has been questioned for saying otherwise.




Here is my argument for you to refute: If you want to go to college to become an educated person, rather than to be trained for a trade, majoring in either English or Philosophy or enrolling in a true, classical liberal art program such as the one at St. John's--Annapolis can all be excellent ways to learn how to effectively participate in "the great conversation."


They say the same thing about Latin.
I'm not arguing against the intrinsic value. People pay a great deal of money to accumulate stamps, records, paintings etc. I cannot infringe upon a man's desire to pursue happiness.
You can be both educated and employable. The choices are not dichotomous. Doesn't the study of law or medicine constitute "training for a trade" in its broadest sense?
The first two years of college are often designed to enable one participate effectively in "the great conversation".
So on and so forth.
Last edited by Blessedassurance on Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Odd Future Wolf Gang
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 2011 DIFFICULTIES OF MAJORS (Brought to you by KFC)

Postby Odd Future Wolf Gang » Wed Aug 17, 2011 10:04 am

Oh, what a scholar!

User avatar
Cupidity
Posts: 2214
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:21 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 2011 DIFFICULTIES OF MAJORS (Brought to you by KFC)

Postby Cupidity » Wed Aug 17, 2011 10:07 am

You are gonna be that kid that gets on law review, and strikes out at OCI because no one wants to be a in a room with you.

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 2011 DIFFICULTIES OF MAJORS (Brought to you by KFC)

Postby sundance95 » Wed Aug 17, 2011 10:20 am

Blessedassurance wrote:If majoring in English had taught you logic you would have known that a request to desist from ad hominem attacks is not necessarily symmetrical to an assertion that ad hominem necessarily constitutes a logical fallacy.

:? :? :?

User avatar
Odd Future Wolf Gang
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 2011 DIFFICULTIES OF MAJORS (Brought to you by KFC)

Postby Odd Future Wolf Gang » Wed Aug 17, 2011 10:25 am

.
Last edited by Odd Future Wolf Gang on Fri Jun 15, 2012 12:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
cinephile
Posts: 3469
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 3:50 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 2011 DIFFICULTIES OF MAJORS (Brought to you by KFC)

Postby cinephile » Wed Aug 17, 2011 10:40 am

Those are my big fears too.

In undergrad, we called those type of people poli-sci majors.

User avatar
Patriot1208
Posts: 7044
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:28 am

Re: OFFICIAL 2011 DIFFICULTIES OF MAJORS (Brought to you by KFC)

Postby Patriot1208 » Wed Aug 17, 2011 10:41 am

This thread sucks. Most of you took shit majors and could only get shit jobs after graduating, that's a fact. Now STFU about it.

User avatar
bjsesq
TLS Poet Laureate
Posts: 13383
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am

Re: OFFICIAL 2011 DIFFICULTIES OF MAJORS (Brought to you by KFC)

Postby bjsesq » Wed Aug 17, 2011 11:11 am

Blessedassurance wrote:
bjsesq wrote:ITT: blessedassurance tries to show everyone how super smart it is. Nobody cares.


It always amazes me when people go to great lengths to let other people know that they don't care.


Don't strain your neck blowing yourself. Also, typing 10 words isn't a "great length," Mr. Hawking.

User avatar
Patriot1208
Posts: 7044
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:28 am

Re: OFFICIAL 2011 DIFFICULTIES OF MAJORS (Brought to you by KFC)

Postby Patriot1208 » Wed Aug 17, 2011 11:15 am

bjsesq wrote:
Blessedassurance wrote:
bjsesq wrote:ITT: blessedassurance tries to show everyone how super smart it is. Nobody cares.


It always amazes me when people go to great lengths to let other people know that they don't care.


Don't strain your neck blowing yourself. Also, typing 10 words isn't a "great length," Mr. Hawking.

It might be for hawking

User avatar
IamJosh
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:35 am

Re: OFFICIAL 2011 DIFFICULTIES OF MAJORS (Brought to you by KFC)

Postby IamJosh » Wed Aug 17, 2011 11:34 am

Patriot1208 wrote:
bjsesq wrote:
Blessedassurance wrote:
bjsesq wrote:ITT: blessedassurance tries to show everyone how super smart it is. Nobody cares.


It always amazes me when people go to great lengths to let other people know that they don't care.


Don't strain your neck blowing yourself. Also, typing 10 words isn't a "great length," Mr. Hawking.

It might be for hawking


Bahahahaha.

User avatar
Blessedassurance
Posts: 2081
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:42 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 2011 DIFFICULTIES OF MAJORS (Brought to you by KFC)

Postby Blessedassurance » Wed Aug 17, 2011 11:40 am

Odd Future Wolf Gang wrote:50% of my fear of going to law school is graduating with no jerb.

But the other 50% is being surrounded by people like blessedassurance for three years.

I just feel like law attracts that "type."

Current law students: am I right?


Don't go.

User avatar
Blessedassurance
Posts: 2081
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:42 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 2011 DIFFICULTIES OF MAJORS (Brought to you by KFC)

Postby Blessedassurance » Wed Aug 17, 2011 11:45 am

bjsesq wrote:
Blessedassurance wrote:
bjsesq wrote:ITT: blessedassurance tries to show everyone how super smart it is. Nobody cares.


It always amazes me when people go to great lengths to let other people know that they don't care.


Don't strain your neck blowing yourself. Also, typing 10 words isn't a "great length," Mr. Hawking.


I'm going to skip the part where "going to great lengths" has nothing to do with word count.

More importantly, why are you so mad?

UML
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:03 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 2011 DIFFICULTIES OF MAJORS (Brought to you by KFC)

Postby UML » Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:46 pm

ThomasMN wrote:UML, your English department failed you in the realm of logical fallacies. An ad hominem attack can be fallacious for many reasons, but generally it is so through attempting to prove that someone's argument is wrong because of something that is wrong with the speaker: Jim is mean therefore Jim's argument must be false! How can you mess up the logical fallacy they make t-shirts out of?

I have a nuanced understanding of informal fallacies. I've studied a few books on the subject. My understanding probably surpasses what is tested on the LR section of the LSAT...just sayin'.

There is a difference between a personal attack and an Ad Hominem fallacy. What do all informal fallacies share that make them deceitful or underhanded? They try to force a dialogue to a premature close. In a given form dialogue a personal attack can be completely fair. For instance, say we are deciding who should be the leader of our village and someone says, "Gary shouldn't be our leader because he couldn't even keep his own family together. How can he lead a village when he can't even lead his own family. Gary's a bad leader." This information, while a personal attack, is completely relevant to the decision at hand. And assuming that the person who objected to Gary is willing to discuss further, he hasn't tried to force the dialogue to a close so it isn't fallacious.

Earlier in this thread, I told a guy: "I've met many science-minded people who deride the humanities, but their arguments are always fallacious and usually stem from (1) frustration caused by ignorance, (2) frustration caused by prior failure, or (3) frustration caused by lack of talent. You seem to be suffering from number one." He then falsely accused me of committing an Ad Hominem fallacy. In no way did I use this statement to try to end the dialogue; in fact, I went on to write a lot more in this thread and have continued to respond to him. I didn't say, "You're ignorance makes you frustrated. End of conversation." That would have been fallacious.

p.s. If anybody is interested, here's a book that goes into great detail on when a personal attack is and isn't fallacious. I found it to be great when studying for the LSAT: http://www.amazon.com/Informal-Logic-Pr ... 444&sr=8-1

User avatar
Patriot1208
Posts: 7044
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:28 am

Re: OFFICIAL 2011 DIFFICULTIES OF MAJORS (Brought to you by KFC)

Postby Patriot1208 » Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:56 pm

Can someone rename this thread "Race to becoming TLS's most insufferable poster"

UML
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:03 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 2011 DIFFICULTIES OF MAJORS (Brought to you by KFC)

Postby UML » Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:00 pm

Blessedassurance wrote:
Here is my argument for you to refute: If you want to go to college to become an educated person, rather than to be trained for a trade, majoring in either English or Philosophy or enrolling in a true, classical liberal art program such as the one at St. John's--Annapolis can all be excellent ways to learn how to effectively participate in "the great conversation."

They say the same thing about Latin.
I'm not arguing against the intrinsic value. People pay a great deal of money to accumulate stamps, records, paintings etc. I cannot infringe upon a man's desire to pursue happiness.
You can be both educated and employable. The choices are not dichotomous. Doesn't the study of law or medicine constitute "training for a trade" in its broadest sense?
The first two years of college are often designed to enable one participate effectively in "the great conversation".
So on and so forth.


Maybe I'll take the time to respond to the rest of your points at some other time, but I'm hesitant to do so. It's obvious that you've misread (intentionally or unintentionally, I'm nor sure) most of what I've written. Writing a thought-out response is pointless if the other party doesn't take the time to read carefully what you've written.

But regarding your last point: you've strutted into this thread and rudely taken a huge dump on English majors by claiming that studying English is useless. Later you backpedal by claiming that you believe it has intrinsic value.

Majoring in English is about engaging ideas. You read The Brothers Karamazov, Ulysses, Montaigne, or whatever, and then you philosophize, you grapple with the ideas. You reach a conclusion and you defend it by crafting an argument and presenting it in writing or orally. This takes logic, rhetoric, and grammar. You receive feedback from your peers or from the professor, which you can use to refine your use of logic, rhetoric, and grammar. Rhetoric is obviously relevant, but you seem to be quibbling over whether or not logic and grammar play a part in English studies. Let’s ignore the obvious fact that the three are inextricably interrelated as expounded upon by Aristotle and other works on the trivium. Informal logic has to do with developing a logic to assess, analyze, and improve reasoning, especially as it relates to argumentation. As demonstrated by the better literary critics, quite eloquent and deft arguments can be constructed to defend what is either (1) (arguably) an opinion on aesthetics or (2) a critique of a book’s philosophy. Regardless, English papers put forth arguments; arguments require logic.

Concerning grammar, mastering the rules of usage is a byproduct of writing myriad papers. But the rules of usage are very Mickey Mouse when compared with advanced studies of linguistics. Your comments reveal that you assume the validity of a descriptivist rather than a prescriptivist approach to generative grammar. However, this is a hotly contested and complicated issue within the academy. And as I’m sure you know generative grammar is only a small piece of the pie. Consider transformational grammar, functional grammar, comparative grammar, relational grammar, mental grammar, universal grammar, etc. At my college (and many others) linguistics is part of the English department.

You object to this saying that the same things can be said about Latin. So what? The same thing can be said about anything in the humanities but this doesn’t detract from the truth that studying English can be a steppingstone to a true, lifelong education. You compare it to stamp collecting as if it’s a mere hobby, but that just shows—as I’ve mentioned earlier—your ignorance. Becoming a self-sufficient thinker and learner, a lifelong student, is nothing to be scoffed at. I am confident that studying English gave me the mental dexterity to handle any framework of ideas. I choose to go to law school. But if I had wanted to be an economist, or an accountant, or a mathematician, or an investment banker, or go to medical school, or engineering school, or do anything else, I am confident that I could independently memorize and apply the facts and formulas necessary for me to do so.

There are many reasons to go to college. What we disagree about it the relative worth of the different reasons to attend. I went to college to become a smart, educated person. I didn’t go to college to learn how to read books so I would be employable, I went to college to have the privilege of being able to do nothing but read and discuss books for four years. The byproduct of those four years was a true education, which, in my estimation, is more valuable than a degree from any specific department. Being an educated person makes you infinitely employable, more so than any degree or certificate. An English degree can be an excellent way of engaging the ideas that make one an educated, independent thinker. Therefore it has worth, as does any other humanities degree.
Last edited by UML on Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:07 pm, edited 3 times in total.

UML
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:03 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 2011 DIFFICULTIES OF MAJORS (Brought to you by KFC)

Postby UML » Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:01 pm

Patriot1208 wrote:Can someone rename this thread "Race to becoming TLS's most insufferable poster"

You're the guy who's posted over fifteen thousand times. If that's not insufferable I don't know what is.
Last edited by UML on Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
NYC Law
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 3:33 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 2011 DIFFICULTIES OF MAJORS (Brought to you by KFC)

Postby NYC Law » Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Why do all "majors" threads end up like this?

Just say your major sucked and move on.

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 2011 DIFFICULTIES OF MAJORS (Brought to you by KFC)

Postby sundance95 » Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:04 pm

UML wrote:
Patriot1208 wrote:Can someone rename this thread "Race to becoming TLS's most insufferable poster"

You're the guy who's posted over fifteen thousand times. If that's not insufferable, I don't know what is.

And yet I'm less sick of him then you. Curious.

User avatar
TrojanHopeful
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 1:37 am

Re: OFFICIAL 2011 DIFFICULTIES OF MAJORS (Brought to you by KFC)

Postby TrojanHopeful » Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:11 pm

NYC Law wrote:Why do all "majors" threads end up like this?

Just say your major sucked and move on.


your major sucked

(had to join the fun) 8)

User avatar
chem
Posts: 867
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 8:14 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 2011 DIFFICULTIES OF MAJORS (Brought to you by KFC)

Postby chem » Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:21 pm

Image

User avatar
Patriot1208
Posts: 7044
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:28 am

Re: OFFICIAL 2011 DIFFICULTIES OF MAJORS (Brought to you by KFC)

Postby Patriot1208 » Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:28 pm

UML wrote:
Patriot1208 wrote:Can someone rename this thread "Race to becoming TLS's most insufferable poster"

You're the guy who's posted over fifteen thousand times. If that's not insufferable I don't know what is.

I don't think you understand what insufferable means in this context

User avatar
Blessedassurance
Posts: 2081
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:42 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 2011 DIFFICULTIES OF MAJORS (Brought to you by KFC)

Postby Blessedassurance » Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:30 pm

UML wrote: Earlier in this thread, I told a guy: "I've met many science-minded people who deride the humanities, but their arguments are always fallacious and usually stem from (1) frustration caused by ignorance, (2) frustration caused by prior failure, or (3) frustration caused by lack of talent. You seem to be suffering from number one." He then falsely accused me of committing an Ad Hominem fallacy. In no way did I use this statement to try to end the dialogue; in fact, I went on to write a lot more in this thread and have continued to respond to him. I didn't say, "You'reYour ignorance makes you frustrated. End of conversation." That would have been fallacious.

My original quote on page 4 of this thread wrote:You should learn to argue based on my assertions and desist from ad hominem attacks


Your comprehension skills leave much to be desired. You seem to think ad hominem necessarily implies a logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

As an English major, I'm sure you recognize the irony of an English major's failure to take cognizance of the distinction between "you're" and "your" in a post advocating the usefulness of a degree in English.

It's petty on my part, I know. Sorry, I just couldn't resist. My entries were meant as a joke but I think I touched a couple of nerves which is pretty cool. Watch someone complain about my use of "cognizance".

User avatar
ThomasMN
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:38 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 2011 DIFFICULTIES OF MAJORS (Brought to you by KFC)

Postby ThomasMN » Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:32 pm

UML wrote:
ThomasMN wrote:UML, your English department failed you in the realm of logical fallacies. An ad hominem attack can be fallacious for many reasons, but generally it is so through attempting to prove that someone's argument is wrong because of something that is wrong with the speaker: Jim is mean therefore Jim's argument must be false! How can you mess up the logical fallacy they make t-shirts out of?

I have a nuanced understanding of informal fallacies. I've studied a few books on the subject. My understanding probably surpasses what is tested on the LR section of the LSAT...just sayin'.

There is a difference between a personal attack and an Ad Hominem fallacy. What do all informal fallacies share that make them deceitful or underhanded? They try to force a dialogue to a premature close. In a given form dialogue a personal attack can be completely fair. For instance, say we are deciding who should be the leader of our village and someone says, "Gary shouldn't be our leader because he couldn't even keep his own family together. How can he lead a village when he can't even lead his own family. Gary's a bad leader." This information, while a personal attack, is completely relevant to the decision at hand. And assuming that the person who objected to Gary is willing to discuss further, he hasn't tried to force the dialogue to a close so it isn't fallacious.

Earlier in this thread, I told a guy: "I've met many science-minded people who deride the humanities, but their arguments are always fallacious and usually stem from (1) frustration caused by ignorance, (2) frustration caused by prior failure, or (3) frustration caused by lack of talent. You seem to be suffering from number one." He then falsely accused me of committing an Ad Hominem fallacy. In no way did I use this statement to try to end the dialogue; in fact, I went on to write a lot more in this thread and have continued to respond to him. I didn't say, "You're ignorance makes you frustrated. End of conversation." That would have been fallacious.

p.s. If anybody is interested, here's a book that goes into great detail on when a personal attack is and isn't fallacious. I found it to be great when studying for the LSAT: http://www.amazon.com/Informal-Logic-Pr ... 444&sr=8-1


I took logic. Never have I seen it mentioned that to be a fallacious ad hominem it had to prematurely end the argument. It is simply an attack against the person (hence the name). To be fallacious all it has to do is attack a part of the person's character that has nothing to do with the argument: Jim is mean, his math proof can't be right. It does not need to end the argument, although it often does simply due to the nature of ad hominem attacks. The argument continuing on has nothing to do with the ad hominem attacking a salient point of the person's character or not.

User avatar
NYC Law
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 3:33 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 2011 DIFFICULTIES OF MAJORS (Brought to you by KFC)

Postby NYC Law » Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:33 pm

ThomasMN wrote:
UML wrote:
ThomasMN wrote:UML, your English department failed you in the realm of logical fallacies. An ad hominem attack can be fallacious for many reasons, but generally it is so through attempting to prove that someone's argument is wrong because of something that is wrong with the speaker: Jim is mean therefore Jim's argument must be false! How can you mess up the logical fallacy they make t-shirts out of?

I have a nuanced understanding of informal fallacies. I've studied a few books on the subject. My understanding probably surpasses what is tested on the LR section of the LSAT...just sayin'.

There is a difference between a personal attack and an Ad Hominem fallacy. What do all informal fallacies share that make them deceitful or underhanded? They try to force a dialogue to a premature close. In a given form dialogue a personal attack can be completely fair. For instance, say we are deciding who should be the leader of our village and someone says, "Gary shouldn't be our leader because he couldn't even keep his own family together. How can he lead a village when he can't even lead his own family. Gary's a bad leader." This information, while a personal attack, is completely relevant to the decision at hand. And assuming that the person who objected to Gary is willing to discuss further, he hasn't tried to force the dialogue to a close so it isn't fallacious.

Earlier in this thread, I told a guy: "I've met many science-minded people who deride the humanities, but their arguments are always fallacious and usually stem from (1) frustration caused by ignorance, (2) frustration caused by prior failure, or (3) frustration caused by lack of talent. You seem to be suffering from number one." He then falsely accused me of committing an Ad Hominem fallacy. In no way did I use this statement to try to end the dialogue; in fact, I went on to write a lot more in this thread and have continued to respond to him. I didn't say, "You're ignorance makes you frustrated. End of conversation." That would have been fallacious.

p.s. If anybody is interested, here's a book that goes into great detail on when a personal attack is and isn't fallacious. I found it to be great when studying for the LSAT: http://www.amazon.com/Informal-Logic-Pr ... 444&sr=8-1


I took logic. Never have I seen it mentioned that to be a fallacious ad hominem it had to prematurely end the argument. It is simply an attack against the person (hence the name). To be fallacious all it has to do is attack a part of the person's character that has nothing to do with the argument: Jim is mean, his math proof can't be right. It does not need to end the argument, although it often does simply due to the nature of ad hominem attacks. The argument continuing on has nothing to do with the ad hominem attacking a salient point of the person's character or not.


People actually are reading what UML/Blessed Assurance are writing?




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests