Law School Transparency.org Forum

[Sell Manilla]

Most rational people would disregard a call to participate in a watchdog program before knowing exactly what they were getting into, & most rational people have a lot less at stake than law schools.

I think you are making too much of this. The standard is not tentative (it has been pretty thoroughly vetted); the guidelines for reporting are tentative...

Maybe so. Hopefully so.

[Sell Manilla]

Pushing the ball forward does not require that we kick it all the way down field.

True, but I think a better analogy of my criticism would be:
You can kick a goal from anywhere on the field, but it can't hurt to get as close as possible before letting loose your first shot.
Good news is, it's not a single-shot game.

[Sell Manilla]

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize there were rules set up ahead of time that I was supposed to play by. Silly me. Or you, for not mentioning your nonsensical rules in advance.

I didn't make the rule of avoiding circular logic in rational debate.

[jenesaislaw]

Pushing the ball forward does not require that we kick it all the way down field.

True, but I think a better analogy of my criticism would be:
You can kick a goal from anywhere on the field, but it can't hurt to get as close as possible before letting loose your first shot.
Good news is, it's not a single-shot game.

I was responding to the post directly above that one. The one that said we're out of our mind if we think more than 10 schools will respond. Anything that follows from this is useful. The kind of response only dictates the next step, not failure or success.

[Action Jackson]

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize there were rules set up ahead of time that I was supposed to play by. Silly me. Or you, for not mentioning your nonsensical rules in advance.

I didn't make the rule of avoiding circular logic in rational debate.

I don't think you understand what "circular logic" means.

[Sell Manilla]

I don't think you understand what "circular logic" means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
"In order for schools to be impacted negatively, which can be operationally defined as losing prospective students to lower-ranked schools, prospective students must be willing to choose lower-ranked schools over higher-ranked ones"
Your #5 was indeed circular.

Edit: if it's not technically "circular logic", it's a close relative.

[Sell Manilla]

I was responding to the post directly above that one. The one that said we're out of our mind if we think more than 10 schools will respond.

Indeed. My criticism was quoted in that post though, so I assumed - perhaps incorrectly - that the final response was in some way related to my criticism. Whatevs.

Anything that follows from this is useful. The kind of response only dictates the next step, not failure or success.

Agreed. I hope for all our sakes that it continues to gain momentum & eventually is a gold standard with enormous significance which compels all ABA schools to sign on. ::crosses fingers::

[Action Jackson]

I don't think you understand what "circular logic" means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
"In order for schools to be impacted negatively, which can be operationally defined as losing prospective students to lower-ranked schools, prospective students must be willing to choose lower-ranked schools over higher-ranked ones"
Your #5 was indeed circular.

Edit: if it's not technically "circular logic", it's a close relative.

OMFG!

First, the example you gave is NOT circular logic. That is simple definition. "Impacted negatively" = "lose students to lower ranked schools." That's all your example does. Circular logic is something like, "Top law schools are the best schools because they're ranked very highly." The CONCLUSION restates the PREMISE.

Second, you've misread or misinterpreted what I wrote. My list was all the things that would have to happen in order for LST to actually benefit schools, the final item being law students actually doing what you said (go to #60 instead of #45). It's just restating what YOU said would happen. How you can argue there's a logical fallacy in a statement of an action a subject would have to undertake is startling, to say the least.

Finally, fun though it may be to laugh at your inability to identify logical fallacies, none of this addresses the main issue, that it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that events would occur such that a law school would see any benefit from releasing their real employment figures. It's simply unfathomable.

[Sell Manilla]

First, the example you gave is NOT circular logic. That is simple definition. "Impacted negatively" = "lose students to lower ranked schools." That's all your example does. Circular logic is something like, "Top law schools are the best schools because they're ranked very highly." The CONCLUSION restates the PREMISE.

Let's try again:
"Negative impact" [A] can be defined as "Schools losing students to lower-ranked schools" . So, A = B

Your #5 included B as a necessary condition for settling on A. It is circular. One of the premises is identical to part of the conclusion. No, it's not a classic, simple version, but the logic is circular.
Again, if it is not technically "circular logic", it is a very close relative, & still logically entangled.

Also, I didn't misunderstand the purpose of that 5-piece list. Its purpose was pretty clear.

We're de-railing this thread now. Let's agree to disagree on this point.

[Action Jackson]

Let's try again:
"Negative impact" [A] can be defined as "Schools losing students to lower-ranked schools" . So, A = B

Please pay attention: that is NOT circular logic. Circular logic is where a CONCLUSION is the same as the PREMISE. It is not merely something can be defined as something else. What you have described is not even logic. It is simply a statement. Again, an example of circular logic would be something like, "Lower ranked law schools aren't any good because they're at the bottom of the rankings."

Moreover, "negative impact" CAN be defined as losing students, or it can mean losing ranking, or it can mean loss of prestige, or it can mean burning down to the ground. In the example you keep citing (which, again, is not really what I said), you are ASSUMING A = B, when it doesn't have to be that way. Therefore, it is reasonable to give a definition for what A means.

For example, "He's unhealthy because he's overweight." You CAN define unhealthy as being the same thing as fat, but aren't there unhealthy people that aren't overweight? Of course there are. You can't just say "He's unhealthy" and leave it at that. You need to know what you're talking about.

What makes this so insane, beyond all this, is that what I wrote, my infamous #5, doesn't draw a conclusion. There IS NO conclusion. I was stating an event that would have to occur. You can't have a logical fallacy if there's no logical deduction being made. It's like saying, "It's going to rain tomorrow," is an ad hominem attack. That makes no sense.

At this point, I don't even care about LST anymore, but you seem to have serious issues understanding basic logic and sentence structure. This isn't meant to be an insult. I am genuinely shocked at what I'm reading here. You don't have to be logic master, but you should at least understand something as basic as circular logic.

[bwv812]

.

[Sell Manilla]

Let's try again:
"Negative impact" [A] can be defined as "Schools losing students to lower-ranked schools". So, A = B

Please pay attention: that is NOT circular logic. Circular logic is where a CONCLUSION is the same as the PREMISE. It is not merely something can be defined as something else. What you have described is not even logic. It is simply a statement.

True. That was equating two different statements as having the same logical meaning... You need to keep reading?

Your #5 {read: "a premise"} included B as a necessary condition for settling on A {read: "a conclusion"}. It is circular {read: if you accept that A=B}. One of the premises is identical to part of the conclusion. No, it's not a classic, simple version, but the logic is circular.
Again, if it is not technically "circular logic", it is a very close relative, & still logically entangled.

To be fair, as you point out, "negative impact" CAN mean B, but it can mean other things. So let's not grant that A=B in the first place. I read too far into your "negative impact": you didn't mean "students changing their mind"; you meant prestige/losing ranking etc. *poof* your #5 premise is no longer logically identical to the conclusion in question, & so I revoke my accusation that you were arguing circularly. I apologize for casting the first accusatory stone.