Tilting at windmills by Gustave Doré

Tilting at windmills is an English idiom that means attacking imaginary enemies. The expression is derived from the 1605 novel Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes, and the word "tilt" in this context comes from jousting.

The phrase is sometimes used to describe either confrontations where adversaries are incorrectly perceived, or courses of action that are based on misinterpreted or misapplied heroic, romantic, or idealistic justifications. It may also connote an importune, unfounded, and vain effort against adversaries real or imagined for a vain goal.[1]

>>3784488

The phrase comes from an episode in the Cervantes novel wherein protagonist Don Quixote fights windmills that he imagines are giants. A relevant portion of the novel states:

Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, "Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless."

"What giants?" asked Sancho Panza.

"Those you see over there," replied his master, "with their long arms. Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length."

"Take care, sir," cried Sancho. "Those over there are not giants but windmills. Those things that seem to be their arms are sails which, when they are whirled around by the wind, turn the millstone."

— Part 1, Chapter VIII. Of the valourous Don Quixote's success in the dreadful and never before imagined Adventure of the Windmills, with other events worthy of happy record.

>>3784493

Cervantes wrote Don Quixote in two parts, published respectively in 1605 and 1615, during the latter part of a historical period known as the Spanish Golden Age. During this age, Spain pursued military conquests in parts of Europe and conquered large parts of the Americas, which brought great riches to the country and inspired a flowering of the arts. In La Mancha, Castilla, Cervantes' setting for the novel, there still exist some examples of the era's windmills that Don Quixote found in his adventures.

Cervantes wrote and published Don Quixote during the Eighty Years' War, or Dutch War of Independence (1568–1648), a revolt by the Habsburg Netherlands to end Spanish rule. In Don Quixote, the eponymous protagonist consistently misinterprets the motives and actions of his adversaries and allies, and struggles to even understand his own at times — a conundrum regularly resulting in apparently unjustified violent actions and consequences. One way of interpreting Don Quixote's tilting at windmills could be allegorically, thereby promoting critical, skeptical, or satirical evaluation of either a hero's motives, rationales and actions, or the ultimate aims of a nation's foreign policies.

Popular culture

The movie They Might Be Giants (1971) features a reference to Don Quixote thinking that the windmills are giants, and the movie is named after that reference.

Canadian singer-songwriter Gordon Lightfoot, in a 1972 album release by the same name, wrote and recorded the song Don Quixote which contained the lines "through the woodland, through the valley, comes a horseman wild and free; tilting at the windmills passing, who can the brave young horseman be…".

The alternative Santa Barbara band Toad the Wet Sprocket released the album Dulcinea in 1994. Named for the love interest of Don Quixote, the album features the song "Windmills." The first lyric reads, "I spend too much time raiding windmills We go side by side laughing until it's right…".[2] The lyric may reflect how Don Quixote, true to his romantic tendencies, puts Dulcinea on a pedestal. As such, the reality of the character Dulcinea does not correspond to Don Quixote's fantasy of her.

The US punk band ALL, on their 1988 album Allroy Sez, released a track titled Don Quixote written by singer/songwriter Dave Smalley featuring the line "tilting at windmills".

Australian folk rock band Weddings Parties Anything released the album Roaring Days in 1988, which contained the song "Tilting at Windmills".

In philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur[1] (Latin for "it does not follow") is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic.[2] It is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid. The argument itself could have true premises, but still have a false conclusion.[3] Thus, a formal fallacy is a fallacy where deduction goes wrong, and is no longer a logical process. However, this may not affect the truth of the conclusion since validity and truth are separate in formal logic.

While a logical argument is a non sequitur if, and only if, it is invalid, the term "non sequitur" typically refers to those types of invalid arguments which do not constitute formal fallacies covered by particular terms (e.g. affirming the consequent). In other words, in practice, "non sequitur" refers to an unnamed formal fallacy.

A special case is a mathematical fallacy, an intentionally invalid mathematical proof, often with the error subtle and somehow concealed. Mathematical fallacies are typically crafted and exhibited for educational purposes, usually taking the form of spurious proofs of obvious contradictions.

A formal fallacy is contrasted with an informal fallacy, which may have a valid logical form and yet be unsound because one or more premises are false.

The standard Aristotelian logical fallacies are:

Fallacy of four terms (Quaternio terminorum);

Fallacy of the undistributed middle;

Fallacy of illicit process of the major or the minor term;

Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.

Other logical fallacies include:

The self-reliant fallacy

In philosophy, the term logical fallacy properly refers to a formal fallacy—a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument, which renders the argument invalid.

However, it is often used more generally in informal discourse to mean an argument that is problematic for any reason, and thus encompasses informal fallacies as well as formal fallacies—valid but unsound claims or poor non-deductive argumentation.

The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion (see fallacy fallacy). Both may actually be true, or even more probable as a result of the argument (e.g. appeal to authority), but the deductive argument is still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises in the manner described. By extension, an argument can contain a formal fallacy even if the argument is not a deductive one; for instance an inductive argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability or causality can be said to commit a formal fallacy.

>>3784557

Affirming the consequent

Main article: Affirming the consequent

Any argument that takes the following form is a non sequitur

If A is true, then B is true.

B is true.

Therefore, A is true.

Even if the premise and conclusion are all true, the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premise. This sort of non sequitur is also called affirming the consequent.

An example of affirming the consequent would be:

If Jackson is a human (A), then Jackson is a mammal. (B)

Jackson is a mammal. (B)

Therefore, Jackson is a human. (A)

While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premise:

Humans are mammals

Jackson is a mammal

Therefore, Jackson is a human

The truth of the conclusion is independent of the truth of its premise – it is a 'non sequitur', since Jackson might be a mammal without being human. He might be an elephant.

Affirming the consequent is essentially the same as the fallacy of the undistributed middle, but using propositions rather than set membership.

>>3784557

>>3784565

Denying the antecedent

Main article: Denying the antecedent

Another common non sequitur is this:

If A is true, then B is true.

A is false.

Therefore, B is false.

While B can indeed be false, this cannot be linked to the premise since the statement is a non sequitur. This is called denying the antecedent.

An example of denying the antecedent would be:

If I am Japanese, then I am Asian.

I am not Japanese.

Therefore, I am not Asian.

While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premise. For all the reader knows, the statement's declarant could be another ethnicity of Asia, e.g. Chinese, in which case the premise would be true but the conclusion false. This argument is still a fallacy even if the conclusion is true.

>>3784572

Affirming a disjunct

Main article: Affirming a disjunct

Affirming a disjunct is a fallacy when in the following form:

A is true or B is true.

B is true.

Therefore, A is not true.*

The conclusion does not follow from the premise as it could be the case that A and B are both true. This fallacy stems from the stated definition of or in propositional logic to be inclusive.

An example of affirming a disjunct would be:

I am at home or I am in the city.

I am at home.

Therefore, I am not in the city.

While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premise. For all the reader knows, the declarant of the statement very well could be in both the city and their home, in which case the premises would be true but the conclusion false. This argument is still a fallacy even if the conclusion is true.

*Note that this is only a logical fallacy when the word "or" is in its inclusive form. If the two possibilities in question are mutually exclusive, this is not a logical fallacy. For example,

I am either at home or I am in the city.

I am at home.

Therefore, I am not in the city.

>>3784576

Denying a conjunct

Main article: Denying a conjunct

Denying a conjunct is a fallacy when in the following form:

It is not the case that both A is true and B is true.

B is not true.

Therefore, A is true.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise as it could be the case that A and B are both false.

An example of denying a conjunct would be:

I cannot be both at home and in the city.

I am not at home.

Therefore, I am in the city.

While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premise. For all the reader knows, the declarant of the statement very well could neither be at home nor in the city, in which case the premise would be true but the conclusion false. This argument is still a fallacy even if the conclusion is true.

>>3784582

Fallacy of the undistributed middle

Main article: Fallacy of the undistributed middle

The fallacy of the undistributed middle is a fallacy that is committed when the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed. It is thus a syllogistic fallacy. More specifically it is also a form of non sequitur.

The fallacy of the undistributed middle takes the following form:

All Zs are Bs.

Y is a B.

Therefore, Y is a Z.

It may or may not be the case that "all Zs are Bs", but in either case it is irrelevant to the conclusion. What is relevant to the conclusion is whether it is true that "all Bs are Zs," which is ignored in the argument.

An example can be given as follows, where B=mammals, Y=Mary and Z=humans:

All humans are mammals.

Mary is a mammal.

Therefore, Mary is a human.

Note that if the terms (Z and B) were swapped around in the first co-premise then it would no longer be a fallacy and would be correct.

Formal logic is not used to determine whether or not an argument is true. Formal arguments can either be valid or invalid. A valid argument may also be sound or unsound:

A valid argument has a correct formal structure. A valid argument is one where if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

A sound argument is a formally correct argument that also contains true premises.

Ideally, the best kind of formal argument is a sound, valid argument.

Formal fallacies do not take into account the soundness of an argument, but rather its validity. Premises in formal logic are commonly represented by letters (most commonly p and q). A fallacy occurs when the structure of the argument is incorrect, despite the truth of the premises.

As modus ponens, the following argument contains no formal fallacies:

If P then Q

P

Therefore Q

A logical fallacy associated with this format of argument is referred to as affirming the consequent, which would look like this:

If P then Q

Q

Therefore P

This is a fallacy because it does not take into account other possibilities. To illustrate this more clearly, substitute the letters with premises:

If it rains, the street will be wet.

The street is wet.

Therefore, it rained.

Although it is possible that this conclusion is true, it does not necessarily mean it must be true. The street could be wet for a variety of other reasons that this argument does not take into account. However, if we look at the valid form of the argument, we can see that the conclusion must be true:

If it rains, the street will be wet.

It rained.

Therefore, the street is wet.

This argument is valid and, if it did rain, it would also be sound.

"Per fas et nefas" (Latin for "through right and wrong") refers to unfair eristic treatment. It occurs when interlocutor A postulates a theory, and cites several reasons that justify it. Interlocutor B then refutes one of the arguments, and triumphantly declares that A's argument has no basis, even though they never said a word about the other arguments that A put forth.

>>3784609

If statements 1 and 2 are true, it absolutely follows that statement 3 is true. However, it may still be the case that statement 1 or 2 is not true. For example:

If Albert Einstein makes a statement about science, it is correct.

Albert Einstein states that all quantum mechanics is deterministic.

Therefore, it's true that quantum mechanics is deterministic.

In this case, statement 1 is false. The particular informal fallacy being committed in this assertion is argument from authority. By contrast, an argument with a formal fallacy could still contain all true premises:

If someone owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.

Bill Gates is rich.

Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

Although, 1 and 2 are true statements, 3 does not follow because the argument commits the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent.

An argument could contain both an informal fallacy and a formal fallacy yet lead to a conclusion that happens to be true, for example, again affirming the consequent, now also from an untrue premise:

If a scientist makes a statement about science, it is correct.

It is true that quantum mechanics is deterministic.

Therefore, a scientist has made a statement about it.

>>3784639

In everyday speech, a non sequitur is a statement in which the final part is totally unrelated to the first part, for example:

Life is life and fun is fun, but it's all so quiet when the goldfish die.

— West with the Night, Beryl Markham[8]

In philosophy and rhetoric, eristic (from Eris, the ancient Greek goddess of chaos, strife, and discord) refers to argument that aims to successfully dispute another's argument, rather than searching for truth. According to T.H. Irwin, "It is characteristic of the eristic to think of some arguments as a way of defeating the other side, by showing that an opponent must assent to the negation of what he initially took himself to believe."[1] Eristic is arguing for the sake of conflict, as opposed to resolving conflict.[2]

>>3784661

A non-sequitur (English: /ˌnɒnˈsɛkwɪtər/; Classical Latin: [noːn ˈsɛkᶣɪtʊr] "it does not follow") is a conversational and literary device, often used for comedic purposes. It is something said that, because of its apparent lack of meaning relative to what preceded it,[1] seems absurd to the point of being humorous or confusing.

This use of the term is distinct from the non-sequitur in logic, where it is a fallacy.

>>3784704

Etymology

The expression is Latin for "it does not follow."[2] It comes from the words "non" meaning not, and the deponent verb sequor, sequi, secutus sum meaning 'to follow'. Deponent verbs have passive forms but active meanings.[3]

Usage

A non-sequitur can denote an abrupt, illogical, or unexpected turn in plot or dialogue by including a relatively inappropriate change in manner. A non-sequitur joke sincerely has no explanation, but it reflects the idiosyncrasies, mental frames and alternative world of the particular comic persona.[4]

>>3784675

geronimo's great great grandson drives a back hoe for alice in wonderland

how discordian muhsatan peanut butter negro is that

>>3784763

google : "Blue waffles"

>>3784740

did you know hitler had to trade his apfel for die glcoke ufo

>>3784797

In psychiatry, derailment (also loosening of association, asyndesis, asyndetic thinking, knight's move thinking, or entgleisen) is a thought disorder characterized by discourse consisting of a sequence of unrelated or only remotely related ideas. The frame of reference often changes from one sentence to the next.[1][2]

In a mild manifestation, this thought disorder is characterized by slippage of ideas further and further from the point of a discussion. Derailment can often be manifestly caused by intense emotions such as euphoria or hysteria. Some of the synonyms given above (loosening of association, asyndetic thinking) are used by some authors to refer just to a loss of goal: discourse that sets off on a particular idea, wanders off and never returns to it. A related term is tangentiality—it refers to off-the-point, oblique or irrelevant answers given to questions.[1] In some studies on creativity, knight's move thinking, while it describes a similarly loose association of ideas, is not considered a mental disorder or the hallmark of one; it is sometimes used as a synonym for lateral thinking.[3][4][5]

>>3784797

Entgleisen (derailment in German) was first used with this meaning by Carl Schneider in 1930.[2] The term asyndesis was introduced by N. Cameron in 1938, while loosening of association was introduced by A. Bleuler in 1950.[8] The phrase knight's move thinking was first used in the context of pathological thinking by the psychologist Peter McKellar in 1957, who hypothesized that schizophrenics fail to suppress divergent associations.[3] Derailment was used with this meaning by Kurt Schneider in 1959.[8]

>>3784812

this nigger tried to eat jesus in rome and his buddies killed all the sculptors

>>3784675

>>3784740

Eristic was a type of "question-and-answer"[3] teaching method popularized by the Sophists, such as Euthydemos and Dionysodoros. Students learned eristic arguments to "refute their opponent, no matter whether he [said] yes or no in answer to their initial question".[4]

Plato contrasted this type of argument with dialectic and other more reasonable and logical methods (e.g., at Republic 454a). In the dialogue Euthydemus, Plato satirizes eristic. It is more than persuasion, and it is more than discourse. It is a combination that wins an argument without regard to truth. Plato believed that the eristic style "did not constitute a method of argument" because to argue eristically is to consciously use fallacious arguments, which therefore weakens one's position.[5]

Unlike Plato, Isocrates (often considered a Sophist) did not distinguish eristic from dialectic.[6] He held that both lacked a "'useful application' … that created responsible citizens",[7] which unscrupulous teachers used for "enriching themselves at the expense of the youth."[8]

Philosophical eristic

Schopenhauer considers that only logic pursues truth. For him, dialectic, sophistry and eristic have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself because it aims at victory. He names these three last methods as "eristic dialectic (contentious argument)."[9]

According to Schopenhauer, Eristic Dialectic is mainly concerned to tabulate and analyze dishonest stratagems,[10] so that they may at once be recognized and defeated, in order to continue with a productive dialectic debate. It is for this very reason that Eristic Dialectic must admittedly take victory, and not objective truth, for its selfish aim and purpose.

A pooh-pooh (also styled as poo-poo)[2] is a fallacy in informal logic that consists of dismissing an argument as being unworthy of serious consideration.[3] Scholars generally characterize the fallacy as a rhetorical device in which the speaker ridicules an argument without responding to the substance of the argument.[4]