Circular Reasoning And Witty Conclusion Of Funny Logic



Quotes by DR. Sohail Ansari
      Conceived and worded by DR. Sohail Ansari (originality of concepts and originality of words).
Dr Sohail believes that there can never be a zero scope for improvement and appreciates criticism if it is not for the sake of criticism. 

Circular reasoning:
·        Facts appear in this book are untrue; therefore this book is untrue because it contains those facts.
·        This sticker is genuine because it is on international brand; therefore international brand is genuine because it has this sticker.
·         Stories are fascinating as they are about adventures in a jungle; adventures in a jungle are fascinating as they are discussed in stories.

Witty conclusions of funny logic:
·        In past it was usual for a father to have more than a single son; therefore, at present it is usual for a father to have less than a single son.
·        In past it was usual for a father to have more than one son; therefore, at present it is usual for a child to have more than one father.
·        In past it was usual for many children to have the same father; therefore, at present it is usual for many fathers to have the same child.
·        Barking dog never bites, therefore, dog that bites never bark (both are busy one in biting and one in barking).
·        Crazy person is crazy all the time, therefore not crazy must be crazy sometime.
·        There are two kinds of essays. In first kind, application is different, words are same; therefore in second kind different words must have same application.
·        Scanning technique is applicable if one knows the things he is searching for; therefore one can apply it to find out his name in name directory. We conclude that scanning is not applicable if one does not know his name.
·        Batsman is cricketer; therefore; he is not cricketer, because he is not a batsman.
·        Not understanding fundamentals makes it difficult to understand advanced concepts; therefore not understanding advanced concepts make it difficult to understand fundamentals.
·        As knowing many things is not knowing everything; therefore not knowing everything must be knowing many things.
·        As knowing many things is not knowing every thing; therefore not knowing many things must be knowing everything.
·        As knowing a few things is not knowing many things; therefore not knowing a few things must be knowing many things.  
·        If a person does not know everything of something then he must know something of everything.
·        If a person knows something of everything then he must know everything of something.
·        Person is arrested if he is a criminal; therefore if person is not arrested then he must not be a criminal.
·        People if have terminal disease, they ultimately die; therefore people do not die if they have not terminal disease.   
·        Every news is not good news; therefore every news is bad news.
·        I am tom and he is George. My name is different from his; therefore if one has name different from my name then he must be George.
·        If a person is not with me then he must be against me; therefore if person is not against me then he must be with me.

Comments

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow! Sir, your way of thinking and vision is at the Peak of joy and blissfulness. It's really outstanding.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Very Nice sir . you are flying with your words :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. i am going to blast sir g.I highly apprecaite your hidden talent which u show regarding funny language and advancement in idioms and phrase in new style:)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Awesome piece of work Sir...
    _Hammad Khan

    ReplyDelete
  6. AOA...
    well the part witty conclusion of funny logic is bit old concept, so many meanings can be interpreted, but i do appreciate the way you crafted word into things...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. dear Zulfiqar Ali. Thanks for your comments. If one understand quotes so he must understand as well that funny side lies in absurdity and alternative is only logical meaning not 'so many meanings'; furthermore people those have done research know quite well the term 'Operational definition' once researcher has defined what he means no other meaning can be driven. The word 'funny logic' clearly indicates the intended meaning; i wonder that how 'so many meanings' can be interpreted' and when only as matter of fact_ that is logical one_ is possible but can not be driven as well because of operational definition .'Old concept' means that people have already used the term 'witty conclusion with funny logic'. i request you and really will appreciate if you provide me with names of scholars who have used this term with their quotes because then i will no longer be entitled to say 'Originality of words and 'originality of concept'. i will wait for your response but if you fail to provide me with names, your comments will be taken as 'funny comments with no logic' and i believe one day some scholar will write under this title.
      By Dr Sohail ansari

      Delete
  7. Outstanding response. People like Mr Zulfigar seems to write without knowing what they are writing. we wait to see how he comes with proof to meet challenge.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes Sir now you have cleared your topic :) in a very short well written response :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. hmmm.....first: Sohail Sahab what you have done is fabulous and outstanding...creating such kind of things is really die hard thing because anyone and everyone can see and derived the one facet but its not the sole one, so who would watch for others, glad that people like you are here,
    :-)
    its not so worthy to extract what everyone is seeing for...the actual experti lies here...
    second whatever Mr. zulfiqar said is not that much reliable because there exit no proper justification for it...MEANINGS CAN NEVER BE INTERPRETED, THEY CAN ONLY BE DERIVED,because as words can be of many kinds some of them are those having spaces in them so every everyone would fill it with his own view...like the word 'FREEDOM' if a scholar/philosopher/writer used it so he must have defined that what this word means to HIM, and how and in which way he filled/derived its meaning....so doing interpretation of meaning would be same as giving meaning of meaning which is almost as illogical as it.


    Salam Baig

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear salman. i am sorry i have no idea who you are as more than 1000 people of more than 12 countries have read blog so far. Any how the point you raised is right. Meaning can be driven and can not be interpreted; for example, there is an injunction/order and many scholars interpret it to derive meaning from it. meaning is the result of interpretation therefore to my understanding can not be interpreted. Meaning can be driven only.

      Delete
  10. sorry to say but my word were taken wrongly.... i talked about concepts not said that these words have already used by others.... so many eamples are available on such logics you have done your self thats what i appriacted....

    Examples
    This might also be described as the causality fallacy: Event Y follows from Event X, so one automatically concludes that X caused Y.

    exmple :A fallacy of the form "All A are B. All C are B. Therefore, all A are C." Consider: All elms are trees. All oaks are trees. Therefore, all elms are oaks.

    example, Only man is logical, No woman is a man, Therefore, no woman is logical.

    Example: "Opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement amounts to nothing but opposition to free trade."

    ReplyDelete
  11. It is a firm conviction on my part that criticism has twin goads of reward and punishment. Reward is possible if one sees intellectual combat as a prod to self fulfillment and punishment in a sense that condescending attitude to detractor leads to failure in getting to grips with one's own shortcomings. I am really delighted to have your counter comments and appreciate your interest in fruitful engagement of dialogue and assure you on my part that exchange is is not at the expense of relationship.
    The examples you have given in your counter reply are of logical fallacies and none is of witty conclusion of funny logic. you better read my article 'originality a myth or reality' and read my remarks at the end of an article so that you can understand the difference in fallacies and also can understand what originality means.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment