Entry
4 Bui Thi Kieu Nga
ITEM
1:
A contradiction to my
theory of dream produced by another of my women patients (the cleverest of
all my dreamers) was resolved more simply, but upon the same pattern: namely
that the nonfulfillment of one wish meant the fulfillment of another.
One day I had been explaining to her that dreams are fulfillments of wishes.
Next day she brought me a dream in which she was traveling down with her
mother-in-law to the place in the country where they were to spend their holidays
together. Now I knew that she had violently rebelled against the idea
of spending the summer near her mother-in-law and that a few days earlier she
had successfully avoided the propinquity she dreaded by engaging rooms in a
far distant resort. And now her dream had undone the solution she had
wished for; was not this the sharpest contradiction of my theory that
in dreams wishes are fulfilled? No doubt; and it was only necessary to
follow the dreams logical consequence in order to arrive at its interpretation.
The dream showed that I was wrong. Thus it was her wish that I
might be wrong, and her dream showed that wish fulfilled (italics
original)" Sigmund Freud, The Interpretations of Dreams (New
York: Avon, 1966), 185.
Logical fallacies:
Circular argument (statement p is true => statement not p is not true)
dreams are fulfillment of
wishes
the woman had a dream
her dream had undone the
solution she had wish for
ð
Dream are not
fufillment of one wish
she wished I might be
wrong
I was wrong
=> her wish was
fulfilled
=> nonfulfillment of one wish meant the
fulfillment of another
ITEM 2:
Logical
fallacies: generalization
gentlemen
prefer blones
using
Lustre-Crème Shampoo make your hair blonde
ð
your hair is
prefered by gentlemen by using Lustre-Crème Shampoo
ITEM 3:
livelywoodsprite.xanga.com
Logical fallacies: weak premises
something black and white are some old TV shows
penguins are black and white
=> some penguins are old TV shows
|
In item 2, you mean " hasty generalization" ?
ReplyDeletein item 3, is it invalid argument(worthless)?
ReplyDeletewhat do u mean " weak premises"? as far as i am concerned,weak premise is one of reasons for content fallacy,but in item 3, i think it is structural fallacy. It is my opinion. what do u think?
in item 2, i think fallacy here is appealing to celebrity.
ReplyDeleteu know, the model for this poster is Marilyn Monroe - an American actress, model, and singer, became starring in a number of commercially successful motion pictures during the 1950s and early 1960s
I agree with Giang about " appeal to celebrity/authority" in item 2.
Deletein your item 3, I think it's content fallacy (factual): False premise--->False conclusion, valid but unsound. I don't suppose that it has structural fallacy, Lananh because you can't fix it rightfully. It's factual errors, penguins and old TV shows are completely different.
ReplyDeleteAbout the item 3: In my point of view, there are many ways to anzalyse an advertisement. In this case, Kieu Nga's idea and Giang's idea are 2 different ways and both of them are appropriate.
ReplyDeleteIn the case this ad commits fallacy of appeal to authority/celebrity, the structure is:
If Marylin Monroe use a product, then you should use it
Marilyn Monroe uses Lustre-Crème Shampoo
Therefore, you should use Lustre-Crème Shampoo