Page 1 of 2
[2011-Oct-17] Better Truism
Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:18 pm
by graphitepen
Am I understanding this setup correctly?
The way I see it is so - the child argues that :
A causes B;
Therefore we don't need A for B to happen anyway.
While in many cases this is statistically possible if A is not the only cause for B, it's definitely a leap of faith...
Also, if that's his argument for the first truism, I totally see him making the same argument against the second.
And considering his disinclination to learn from history, smacking him will not be an effective treatment. He will continue to make the same logical fallacy of strange leaps in logic.
Re: [2011-Oct-17] Better Truism
Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:01 pm
by zark169
Thanks for the good response on the logic. I think you have pretty good argument, but I wanted to throw in my two cents:
Based solely on what the kid says it sounds like he just didn't understand the statement. When he says studying history is a waste of time he is only implying that history not repeating is bad but he doesn't give any explanation as to why he thinks that. For his argument to be true he needs to essentially say "preventing the past from repeating causes the future to be unknown, which ends up being the same as not studying history." Since he doesn't say that, it just sounds like he didn't understand the implied meaning of the truism.
From a logical standpoint the truism would be more accurate to its meaning (as I understand it) by saying, "those who study history's events can better recognize (and prepare for) future events."
Re: [2011-Oct-17] Better Truism
Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:37 pm
by mathnerdjames
The kids argument is a logical fallacy. The father says A implies B. The kid responds so not A implies not B, saying that if we study history we immediately will be not doomed to repeat it, which is a logical fallacy. The father's statement was an implication one way, the lack of studying history will imply that you will be doomed to repeat it, but it is not necessary for one who studies history to be not doomed to repeat it. Therefore, the child's argument is false and the truism holds against the argument.
Re: [2011-Oct-17] Better Truism
Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:43 pm
by Doug
I didn't follow this comic starting with panel 2, because I never understood that to be the meaning of the saying. "Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it" because without studying history they cannot learn from the horrible mistakes others have made in the past in situations we will probably see again, and thus they are doomed to repeat those mistakes through ignorance.
It's not about predicting an inevitable future - it's about using knowledge from the past to improve the future, because otherwise we are doomed to repeat old mistakes. Like state communism (Mao, Stalin, the Kim family, etc.), or appeasing aggressive dictators (or bullies in general) as though it would satisfy them or end their abuse, as was done with Hitler shortly before WWII.
Not that I think you should change or retract anything about the comic, really. If other people understood this saying the way the characters in the comic do, the weirdness of that meaning should be pointed out.
Re: [2011-Oct-17] Better Truism
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:15 am
by Frostbite
One post in and we're already over-analyzing it. Awesome.
Re: [2011-Oct-17] Better Truism
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:35 am
by Oldrac the Chitinous
If you need them, I'm sure there are enough ponies to go around.
Re: [2011-Oct-17] Better Truism
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:01 am
by graphitepen
mathnerdjames wrote:The kids argument is a logical fallacy. The father says A implies B. The kid responds so not A implies not B, saying that if we study history we immediately will be not doomed to repeat it, which is a logical fallacy. The father's statement was an implication one way, the lack of studying history will imply that you will be doomed to repeat it, but it is not necessary for one who studies history to be not doomed to repeat it. Therefore, the child's argument is false and the truism holds against the argument.
I agree with this analysis of the logical fallacy but as I don't think it counteracts the conclusion he came to. He seems to make quite a leap and therefore, while his argument may be false, his conclusion could still hold merit (but it doesn't).
Also, after reassessing my position, I now think this is a very poignant satire on personal, corporate and governmental responsibility.
You see this argument made implicitly every day - "Prevention isn't worth doing until what you'd want to prevent happens".
Decisions based on such reasoning usually end up costing much more than original speculation and estimates.
Re: [2011-Oct-17] Better Truism
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:44 am
by Kaharz
You know how when you have to explain joke, it isn't funny anymore?
Re: [2011-Oct-17] Better Truism
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 12:25 pm
by GUTCHUCKER
I thought this was a good idea when I was a kid. That special kind* of logic I used to have, where I didn't realise that
Study history = no loss
Not study history = loss
and that there is little difference between gaining something and preventing the loss of something. A lion saved is a seagull earned, so I hear.
*On a scale of 1 to 10 it probably would have read 'fucking dumb'
Re: [2011-Oct-17] Better Truism
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:05 pm
by Frostbite
Kaharz wrote:You know how when you have to explain joke, it isn't funny anymore?
You know how when you have to explain a funny joke, that someone didn't get because they're kinda dumb? That makes me sigh.
Re: [2011-Oct-17] Better Truism
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:25 pm
by FistsOfIndifference
Not sure where to post this so Zach sees it, but he should call our school "Penn" and not "UPenn." Not really a big deal, but it would be a good thing for ingratiating himself and selling more books. And for not getting chased out of Philly by angry students wielding flaming torches and pitchforks and... ... flaming pitchforks?
Re: [2011-Oct-17] Better Truism
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:47 pm
by Anon
FistsOfIndifference wrote:Not sure where to post this so Zach sees it, but he should call our school "Penn" and not "UPenn." Not really a big deal, but it would be a good thing for ingratiating himself and selling more books. And for not getting chased out of Philly by angry students wielding flaming torches and pitchforks and... ... flaming pitchforks?
But our school is called UPenn...
Re: [2011-Oct-17] Better Truism
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:28 pm
by FistsOfIndifference
Huh. I never, ever hear anyone who goes here call it that. And I have a whole wardrobe with "Penn" on it, not "UPenn." I'll grant you that saying "Penn" can lead to the "No, not Penn State" conversation, though.
Re: [2011-Oct-17] Better Truism
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:03 am
by DonRetrasado
FistsOfIndifference wrote:And I have a whole wardrobe with "Penn" on it
Re: [2011-Oct-17] Better Truism
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:57 am
by Layra-chan
On its logo and associated it's called Penn. Everyone refers to it as UPenn, including the url of its website. Possibly because "Penn" sounds dumb. Also to lower the possibility of the current freshmen making "Penn '15" jokes.