Dialysis disappointment
Of course, dialysis itself is a disappointment at first, until the alternative is explored. The alternative is death.
At first, nine and a half years ago, I had the choice of Peritoneal dialysis (PD) and Hemodialysis (Hemo) and chose Hemodialysis. But recently, I chose to explore peritoneal dialysis due to some perceived benefits. Those included having a home treatment and not using needles to stick my body and the ability to travel more easily.
I had my surgical consultation today on the process. The doctor not only threw cold water on my idea of PD she flat out told me not to do it. She told me the PD procedure introduces huge problems for the patient that Hemo does not. The stomach "will" herniate (not might but will) and the infections that develop will result in massive hospitalization. Pain in my stomach will cause problems I do not anticipate. My prior heart situation will be made worse by the surgery and the intrusive PD catheter. Then she refused to do the surgery unless my heart surgeon certified me for the surgery.
I came home to find an article on PD. It noted PD is good if you are just beginning dialysis and it is your first treatment choice. However, after a year or so PD patients generally go to hemodialysis. Death will surely accelerate due to the PD procedure and the body will not receive proper cleansing due to the inferior process. The article clearly said mature Hemo patients should not go to PD from Hemo.
So, the Idea of PD, for me, is dead.
Thursday, August 14, 2014
Argument and counter argument and logical fallacies
Argument and counter-argument:
Work in progress comments and discussion needed...
I've always been fascinated by argument and counter-argument. Not the common description of argument where people attribute an argument with a volatile disagreement, but the calm and rational discussion of a subject. Words mean things and often a proper argument means we must adhere to the rules of language and avoid misusing words and structure.
What follows are possible musings on the title and not complete by any means. I welcome discussion and comment on my assertions. It is refreshing to find someone who can discuss without descending into name calling or rationalization. Should I do so I apologize in advance and ask that you call me upon it. Irony can be a big part of such a discussion as can humor; one need not be deadly serious in any discussion to find satisfactory results.
Since college, I admit to instinctively using argument and counter argument while not thinking very clearly about the structure nor the inner workings of them. The Internet has also introduced me to many more logical fallacies than I was used to when citations and actual facts were needed in a written argument. Many of the Internet "discussions" full of logical fallacies would be torn apart in an academic venue. Of course, I make no representation that I might not fall into that category of using logical fallacies but I would say analysis of an argument and it's premise and assumptions should result in less fallacies being present.
Using web resources I've found some good stuff about argument and much of the below is taken from a blog by Leah Inshade called Top 20 Logical Fallacies. My simple blog post will not address all the subjects on argument nor the facts of argument and the subject is not simple. Nor are my remarks complete compared to many other blogs or article.
Essentially any argument consists of some basic elements such as:
One or more premise' which is a fact or assumption
Then a Logical principle (therefore)
and
Finally a if-then conclusion using the elements above.
More completely a simple argument is:
"Premise 1: If A = B, Premise 2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C"
Rationalization:
It is vital that a valid argument avoid rationalization. This is where people begin with conclusions they desire and then reverse engineer the argument to reach the conclusion desired. If this is the case discussion of the assumptions is needed to illuminate the rationalization.
The Premise:
The various premises of the argument must be valid. If a premise is invalid then the argument from that premise is invalid. Note, the conclusion "may" still be valid but must be re-proven using valid premises.
Assumptions:
To understand the argument one must understand all the assumptions being made about the premises of that argument. A discussion of the assumptions which form the basis of the premises of an argument is valuable for the participants.
They may discover they are in agreement on the assumptions or in disagreement. Agreement means the argument can proceed. Disagreement means the argument can't really proceed with any point or validity until more information is available or the participants agree to disagree. Properly a discussion of the assumptions may follow it's own structure of argument and counterargument. Or in many cases, neither party will agree on the assumptions and if pursued, the structure of the argument descends in chaos.
Unwarranted assumptions:
A premise may be an unwarranted assumption which might be true but is not a proven fact. A valid process means getting information to prove the assumption to be correct or incorrect. An unwarranted assumption endangers the premise that it supports.
Hidden assumption:
A hidden assumption is the hardest to work with. If someone has an assumption that is hidden; a discussion of the premise and assumptions that are behind them is warranted.
For instance, in Mormon apologetics, the apologist often works from a hidden assumption. A historical fact may be disputed as invalid despite numerous citations and concrete examples. A famous quote by a Mormon "prophet" which throws light upon a problem of modern doctrine may be denigrated by the apologist because they attribute the quote to the man speaking but not the prophet. They may do this without any historical basis whatsoever. Such a hidden assumption does not advance the argument and is used by the apologist to end discussion. IE: the concrete and cited historical quote is invalid because; I say so, baldly, without any historical basis.
So the hidden assumption can be a problem for the argument and it can improperly block proper discussion of any subject.
Logical Fallacies:
The various articles and books list so many logical fallacies it is hard to catalog them all. For that reason alone the list below is not complete. I am going to list the main points as I see them.
Ad Hominem:
A personal attack that attempts to invalidate the argument by association. IE: You are a (conservative or liberal etc) and therefore your argument is invalid.
A variant is poisoning the well or trying to associate the opponent with unsavory people or ideas, IE: Israeli are all NAZIs which is why their arguments are false.
Ad ignorantiam:
This is where we say something must be true because we cant prove it is untrue. IE: ghosts exist because we don't know enough to disprove or prove they exist.
Argument from authority:
Someone is a reported expert on a subject. They believe A is true and they speak from authority therefore A is true. A variant of this is Ad popular, IE a belief is popular and therefore it is true.
This can be circular also. The President's supporter says the President is successful and they are an expert on Presidents so the President is successful.
There are numerous other types of illogical fallacies but the ones above are those I have run into the most in discussion lately. Possibly I have used some myself.
Cheers!
Citations:
http://inshadecontemplating.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/top-20-logical-fallacies-how-well-do-you-score/#comment-256 by Leah InShade
Work in progress comments and discussion needed...
I've always been fascinated by argument and counter-argument. Not the common description of argument where people attribute an argument with a volatile disagreement, but the calm and rational discussion of a subject. Words mean things and often a proper argument means we must adhere to the rules of language and avoid misusing words and structure.
What follows are possible musings on the title and not complete by any means. I welcome discussion and comment on my assertions. It is refreshing to find someone who can discuss without descending into name calling or rationalization. Should I do so I apologize in advance and ask that you call me upon it. Irony can be a big part of such a discussion as can humor; one need not be deadly serious in any discussion to find satisfactory results.
Since college, I admit to instinctively using argument and counter argument while not thinking very clearly about the structure nor the inner workings of them. The Internet has also introduced me to many more logical fallacies than I was used to when citations and actual facts were needed in a written argument. Many of the Internet "discussions" full of logical fallacies would be torn apart in an academic venue. Of course, I make no representation that I might not fall into that category of using logical fallacies but I would say analysis of an argument and it's premise and assumptions should result in less fallacies being present.
Using web resources I've found some good stuff about argument and much of the below is taken from a blog by Leah Inshade called Top 20 Logical Fallacies. My simple blog post will not address all the subjects on argument nor the facts of argument and the subject is not simple. Nor are my remarks complete compared to many other blogs or article.
Essentially any argument consists of some basic elements such as:
One or more premise' which is a fact or assumption
Then a Logical principle (therefore)
and
Finally a if-then conclusion using the elements above.
More completely a simple argument is:
"Premise 1: If A = B, Premise 2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C"
Rationalization:
It is vital that a valid argument avoid rationalization. This is where people begin with conclusions they desire and then reverse engineer the argument to reach the conclusion desired. If this is the case discussion of the assumptions is needed to illuminate the rationalization.
The Premise:
The various premises of the argument must be valid. If a premise is invalid then the argument from that premise is invalid. Note, the conclusion "may" still be valid but must be re-proven using valid premises.
Assumptions:
To understand the argument one must understand all the assumptions being made about the premises of that argument. A discussion of the assumptions which form the basis of the premises of an argument is valuable for the participants.
They may discover they are in agreement on the assumptions or in disagreement. Agreement means the argument can proceed. Disagreement means the argument can't really proceed with any point or validity until more information is available or the participants agree to disagree. Properly a discussion of the assumptions may follow it's own structure of argument and counterargument. Or in many cases, neither party will agree on the assumptions and if pursued, the structure of the argument descends in chaos.
Unwarranted assumptions:
A premise may be an unwarranted assumption which might be true but is not a proven fact. A valid process means getting information to prove the assumption to be correct or incorrect. An unwarranted assumption endangers the premise that it supports.
Hidden assumption:
A hidden assumption is the hardest to work with. If someone has an assumption that is hidden; a discussion of the premise and assumptions that are behind them is warranted.
For instance, in Mormon apologetics, the apologist often works from a hidden assumption. A historical fact may be disputed as invalid despite numerous citations and concrete examples. A famous quote by a Mormon "prophet" which throws light upon a problem of modern doctrine may be denigrated by the apologist because they attribute the quote to the man speaking but not the prophet. They may do this without any historical basis whatsoever. Such a hidden assumption does not advance the argument and is used by the apologist to end discussion. IE: the concrete and cited historical quote is invalid because; I say so, baldly, without any historical basis.
So the hidden assumption can be a problem for the argument and it can improperly block proper discussion of any subject.
Logical Fallacies:
The various articles and books list so many logical fallacies it is hard to catalog them all. For that reason alone the list below is not complete. I am going to list the main points as I see them.
Ad Hominem:
A personal attack that attempts to invalidate the argument by association. IE: You are a (conservative or liberal etc) and therefore your argument is invalid.
A variant is poisoning the well or trying to associate the opponent with unsavory people or ideas, IE: Israeli are all NAZIs which is why their arguments are false.
Ad ignorantiam:
This is where we say something must be true because we cant prove it is untrue. IE: ghosts exist because we don't know enough to disprove or prove they exist.
Argument from authority:
Someone is a reported expert on a subject. They believe A is true and they speak from authority therefore A is true. A variant of this is Ad popular, IE a belief is popular and therefore it is true.
This can be circular also. The President's supporter says the President is successful and they are an expert on Presidents so the President is successful.
There are numerous other types of illogical fallacies but the ones above are those I have run into the most in discussion lately. Possibly I have used some myself.
Cheers!
Citations:
http://inshadecontemplating.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/top-20-logical-fallacies-how-well-do-you-score/#comment-256 by Leah InShade
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)