(From ex-recruit Giselle)
Posting by ex-LCer "Shadok" on FactNet's LaRouche message board, Sun., July 29, 2007, 12:22 PM
Speaking of rats and mazes...
It [a LaRouche internal memo previously posted] reminds me of an internal memo Lyn wrote nearly a quarter century ago: RIGOR: METHOD OR MORTIS.
It's all about so-called "latticework" and "formal fallacies"...
LaRouche the logician explains quite clearly how "logical fallacies" based on an "imaginary logical loop" can take control of some "human-rat" like trapped in a mental maze, a labyrinth...forever.
This maze is, in fact, Lyndon LaRouche's world...but the rat-man is not capable of realizing that, [or] so LaRouche hopes.
Here is what he wrote:
The late Larry MacDonald, Congressman from Georgia had the same intuition:
"The NCLC is a closed band, but one with its own unique twist that makes it as bizarre among political groupings as a Möbius strip is among geometric figures." (1)
We find it therefore appropriate to illustrate (geometrically) LaRouche's "twisted mind" as a Möbius strip. The shape of a mind capable of "turning one's sense of reality inside-out”...
What Is Circular Reasoning?
Logical fallacies are a type of error in reasoning, errors v/hich may be recognized and corrected by observant thinkers. There are a large number of informal fallacies that are cataloged, and some have multiple names. The frequency of occurrence is one way to rank the fallacies. The ten most-frequent fallacies probably cover the overwhelming majority of illogical reasoning. With a Pareto effect, 20% of the major fallacies might account for 80% of fallacious reasoning.
One of the more common fallacies is circular reasoning, a form of which was called "begging the question" by Aristotle in his book that named the fallacies of classical logic. The fallacy of circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion of an argument is essentially the same as one of the premises in the argument. Circular reasoning is an inference drav/n from a premise that includes the conclusion, and used to prove the conclusion. Definitions of words are circular reasoning* but they are not inference. Inference is the deriving of a conclusion in logic by either induction or deduction. Circular reasoning can be quite subtle* can be obfuscated when intentional, and thus can be difficult to detect.
Circular reasoning as a fallacy refers to reasoning in vicious circles or vicious circular reasoning^ in contrast to reasoning in virtuous circles or virtuous circular reasoning. Virtuous circular reasoning is sometimes used for pedagogical purposes* such as in math to show that two different statements are equivalent expressions of the same thing. In a logical argument* viciously circular reasoning occurs when one attempts to infer a conclusion that is based upon a premise that ultimately contains the conclusion itself.
Why is vicious circular reasoning unacceptable and fatal? Genuine method proceeds from the known to the unknown. Vicious circular reasoning proceeds from the known to the equally known. Vicious circular reasoning, therefore, violates genuine method. Vicious circular reasoning does not add anything new, it does not advance learning, and it does not add to knowledge. Vicious circular reasoning goes nowhere and leads nowhere •• hence, its descriptive name "circular". It literally moves in a circuit or a circle. Most people do not study logical fallacies as part of their formal education. Those who study them typically do so as part of a course in logic* maybe called critical thinking, in the philosophy department. The rest of us have to leam about them on our own in order to make and detect sound arguments. Note that the word argument applies to all reasoning regardless of form* and thus it includes hypotheses, models, arguments and studies.
Here are the citations for a classical text and for a modern text about logic.
By Robert D. Coleman, PhD - 2006
LaRouche is quite explicit about using this fallacy to control people's mind.
Read RIGOR: METHOD OR MORTIS)
He calls this "method": the "Hypothesis of the Higher Hypothesis", where "Hypothesis" does NOT mean a new premise/axiom to explore/investigate and to be tested anymore, but in fact means a "conclusion" to be validated by evidence (or not)...
Indeed his "Hypothesis of the Higher Hypothesis" is a "top-down" method which requires no evidence whatsoever. Larouche is therefore opposed to Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" or to Newton's scientific method (i.e. "empiricism"), and the "Enlightenment" in general.