The concept of "out of context"

[rodsky]

---

One of the major reasons why arguments in a forum go around "in circles" is because people on both sides of the argument sometimes make an error known as "taking an idea out of its proper context". I started this thread as an attempt to educate those who participate in discussions/arguments/debates, and hopefully it will enable people to determine if a person is indeed taking an idea and putting it out of context.

Since this is indeed a science subforum, discussions should follow logical principles, and fallacies like "quoting out of context" should be avoided/not allowed in this forum.

First, let us begin by defining it. From wikipedia:

Fallacy of quoting out of context

The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.

Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms. As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute. As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.

Typical examples:

Let's say President Arroyo went down to Mindanao to personally examine the "insurgency problem" there. She is accompanied by some reporters from different news agencies. During the press conference, she then asks the army generals what it would take to "win" the war against insurgency. Then, one of the generals say "Madam President, we've been going over our current strategy and its implementations, but as hard as we study these, all we can say at this moment is that a war with the insurgents is unwinnable. What we need is BOTH a military campaign and a civilian campaign of awareness to bring about an end to war and establish peace in the area." Now the reports, being reporters, will look for brevity and a catchy headline, so off they go, texting/radioing their news stories back to Manila, and what do the newspapers print out? "WAR IN MINDANAO CANNOT BE WON SAYS GENERALS". Now what do you think the people will think about the generals or the president herself? People will think they are incompetent, simply because a quote was taken out of context. The generals did offer an ALTERATIVE solution to direct warfare, but it was ignored, and the reporters merely took a short quote out of the proper context (that direct war was indeed unwinnable, BUT a direct war PLUS civilian information and legal campaigns can help win it), and thus distorting reality.

I will add more examples here soon. If you already understand the concept of "out of context" and want to share your own examples, feel free to place them here. Thanks.

-RODION

[grovestreet]

guilty ko ani... and i think it also has to do with with how our language is designed or have evolved.

daghan kaayo politicians style mo debate ani nga subforum. hehe

"it makes it almost impossible for us to talk to one another. We talk 'at' each other."

[amnesia]

This is indeed true... I can't site a specific example but I often see this type of fallacy in tabloids when they quote only a portion of the statement and blatantly use it as the headline even if they are aware that it would give an entirely different meaning... And I see a lot of istoryans doing it too

[rr_sipat]

Agree ko ani

[rodsky]

So that this thread would serve the purposes other than that of defining "out of context", I'd like to expand this discussion to include other fallacies that some of you might want to discuss here, so feel free to insert them--the fallacy itself, and brief (and concise) examples of such fallacies. So as not to turn this discussion into something more fitting to a logic/philosophy thread, let the fallacies you list down be "in context" of the sort of fallacies people usually commit in discussion boards.

-RODION

[cptn_star]

science can never be understood by skim reading so we should take more time to comprehend the context word by word..

[rodsky]

Interestingly enough, a classic case of "out of context" has just occurred in this subforum. Joserizal is arguing that I should not use the term "cheating" because he believes the more appropriate word is adaptation. I don't really know why he is uncomfortable with the use of the word, but in my post wherein I mention the word, it's clear to see why the word FITS into the CONTEXT of what I was talking about, yet he simply failed to comprehend why it could be considered correct.

-RODION

[joserizal]

it doesn't mean you're wrong rodsky.
how would you like to have it?
cheat or any words?

kasabot ko ana, lisod kaayo pangita ug plong iningles.
bisaya gud tang dagko.

di pa ka malipay ana nga naay nitabang nimo ug sugyot para saktong pulong imong matuki ug mabat-bat?

by the way.

i will use cheat in behalf of adaptation.
to avoid infractions.

pero, nice baya sad ni nga forum. to specify the unspecified.
was it a technical vocabulary error?

[rodsky]

it doesn't mean you're wrong rodsky.
how would you like to have it?
cheat or any words?

kasabot ko ana, lisod kaayo pangita ug plong iningles.
bisaya gud tang dagko.

di pa ka malipay ana nga naay nitabang nimo ug sugyot para saktong pulong imong matuki ug mabat-bat?

by the way.

i will use cheat in behalf of adaptation.
to avoid infractions.

pero, nice baya sad ni nga forum. to specify the unspecified.
was it a technical vocabulary error?

We use the English when discussing science because it is a universally accepted language of discourse. Even though iStorya.net is based in Cebu, we cannot deny the fact that there may be people who wish to participate in these discussions but are prevented at times due to our tendencies to switch to the vernacular (that being Cebuano). English is encouraged to be used as the medium of instruction, because it would be more difficult to discuss things without the proper tools (i.e. English) needed for a clear discussion of some of the more technical issues in these forums. I don't discourage the use of Cebuano in these forums, however it can sometimes be the reason why misunderstandings arise, which is why it's wiser to stick to a more universally accepted means of communication. Having said that, it's not anymore my problem if you lack the basic skills for effective discourse using English. Your issue is something like this...


Student: "I want to learn calculus."

Teacher: "Well, have you mastered Algebra?"

Student: "Um, no."

Teacher: "Then you can't participate in Calculus class..."

Student: "But why Just because I don't know algebra doesn't mean I don't have a right to know Calculus! I DEMAND to be taught calculus now!"



-RODION

[joserizal]

We use the English when discussing science because it is a universally accepted language of discourse.

that's why we need to be specific.

and your sample, wala mo-igo..
lingual is different from analytical..

sorry for the correction sir..

we were taught english subjects since we're prep/kinder..
another sample would be fine.