Index

Preamble.
The Fallacy of Illiterate conversion, page 1.
The Class of fallacies known as: “Suppressio veri and Suggestio falsi”, Suppressions of truth and suggestions of falsities, page 1
     The notorious fallacies of ambiguity, nouns without qualifying adjectives.



This is a very large class of fallacies, better perhaps termed management of evidence or presentation.

Preamble that may be skipped to the real life examples.

It has classical elements involved that are well established and known as;

1. Insufficient sample,
2. Biased selection,
3. Cloaked language,
4. Misdirected terms, 'sound bites', that act as touchstones to 'affects' below the consciousness, and
5. Extreme derogation to mental health and serving a detriment to the reader or listener.
a) Often easily detected from prepared speeches or crafted template letters, that have been well perfected over years of trial and error in the service of hooking the appetite to good and avoiding the bad.
6. False settings, deceptive contexts.
7. False emphasis, lesser known, and all forms lead to;
8. A hasty generalisation, and
9. Corrupt conclusion.
10. Of special note is a type of 'not' used as a member / particular, of the class of negations, to combine with false emphasis suggesting fallaciously the denial of the converse class itself.
a) A typical one well known is “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
11.  An additional class is the class of omissions, contrary to a statutory or tortious duty of care, that has the benefit of cloaking, to conceal the mens rea, simply because it can be relegated to terms that categorise it as administrative error.
a) This is achieved by saying of something, 'we record that X', instead of 'X', where the thrust is the record, and not the utterance. This spins culpability away from the artist uttering the falsity.
• To even use it, is the first sign to the person looking at words with added purpose,that the phrase, or locution is actually hiding something to begin with. Nobody realistically goes around saying 'I record that X took place', they either say 'X took place' or 'X did not take place'.
• Once I was before a judge, and my adversary a cloaked barrister, stated, after I asked a pointed question to reconcile a contradiction, “I am instructed to answer or say, XXX”. The terms used instantly disclosed his wanting to dissociate himself from responsibility towards the utterance as a proposition of truth value TRUTH. The case ended with their carrying some costs of about £5000, around 1997. Mine were none, save a learning curve I valued.
12. Similarly, and more recently, another barrister deposed in his skeleton argument, a comment that, the photographs, (that exonerated the person I was trying to help), 'purported to show something' other than what they obviously DID show, and that case is being prepared for the public domain shortly.  
a) What's wrong with it one may ask?
b) Very simple. His choice of words indicates the subconscious content, and its cognitive dissonance where to use another declarative term would ensure he made a false representation, amounting to perjury. He is working supposedly as an independent barrister, and is compelled to choose terms that exonerate both him, and his client from culpability.
13. In a case W. V L.B. Camden, the same barrister, using a witness statement from the council it was sufficient to focus on just two words, in an expose of the same type of cognitive dissonance, to the silence of the three legal team and the judge, that is to so nobody dared to try and controvert it, so it had to be accurate, as enough to require the case proceed no further as the expose had some seventeen breaches of statute to traverse, with substantial revenue behind it.



I shall be focussing on a variety of class type members that have as yet rarely been discussed in a public domain, some are. I believe, ground breaking.

The Fallacy of Illiterate conversion, special emphasis as 'ill-iterate' conversion.
“Non philologus”, - not literally, wrong iteration, hence ill iteration. So named to follow the esteem of the person using it.
This is almost a formal fallacy but for safety I shall say it is informal. It occurs when a person iterates what another says in another form, or another sense, dis-applying, or even dis-missing the  literal interpretation which is the golden rule for the propositional calculus and the legal profession.

Often an unwilling victim of such loss of self esteem in a barrister to deliver this, will say, “He twisted everything I said.”

In some of its forms it is epistemologically impossible for life as we know it with reasoning, since it resolves itself into a form of omniscience. When synthesised in this manner it is formally impossible since one cannot know what one does not know unless by direct epistemological contact, all else is belief, in its variety of forms that are merely close or distant to probability,  knowledge and certainty.

Either one asks; and uses the literal or written replies, or one takes what is already given literally stated, and represents it 'as it is or was' without modulation or nuance, OR one manufactures an interpretation based on a variety of levels of hearsay testimony or synthetic reconstructions. The latter being highly precarious.

Several examples from real life.

The first was written to the writer. Not only had he made some four informal representation and one formal; where the universal term is simply 'a representation' in whatever form, the difference being only in the heading or title of the form used, all were replied to, and the last especially had a hand written receipt to prove it had been done. A 'twenty seven' day review will have shown the evidence that was being deliberately concealed, and certainly not lost. This one uses a species of category 10. above.

1. “However despite your stated intention, no formal representations have been made. “

a) The presumption here was to know what he had done, while not being even remotely near in time or place to observe the falsity or truth of his stated intention.
b) The stated intention was converted into its negation without the faintest grounds for so doing, and then stated in such peremptory terms as to be none other than omniscient and false, which is a 'contradcitio in adiecto' itself. (contradiction in terms).
c) The phrase 'have been made' is a false representation of fact, as well as semantically and epistemologically impossible to know, where;
d) Presumption of knowledge one does not have, and cannot have, is made where only the person doing the disputed action is the person who can testify to the truth or falsity of the assertion.
e) Since this is constructed in the negative and distributed globally it theoretically has to have NO witnesses at all, since no person can witness a non event, or know when to observe it. 'No... have been made' is the obverse of an existential proposition. Ridiculous is it not?
f) Nobody else unless they materially witnessed it, and in this case a third party at the customer care desk not only witnessed it IN ITS NEGATION; that is to say witnessed it took place rather than NOT, signed for it, stamped the receipt, and took a half an hour with another to peruse it.
g) The proper reasoned sentence should have finished with, 'no formal representations have been received', as the only viable assertion that could be made by a person in their own self respect to their own percepts, rather than their hallucinatory percepts uttered and muttered as averments.
h) Not alone ill-iterated, but iterated in the obverse, fascinating is it not?

2. A member of parliament's letter nicely crested for framing. to an appellant.

a)  “a parking contravention which you believe did not occur.”
b) his reply to the MP,  read in part,
•  a)”Correction, I had hoped this was abundantly clarified in my last letter, copied to you,  that I understand you should have had last week. Since it was faxed to about 8 people.”
•  b)”There is no such thing as belief involved for myself and the warden. The warden and I alone (unless he had a companion taking the photographs) have direct epistemological contact and hence intimate knowledge of the event and as such everyone else including Mr, Bright, His Director, M. Green are in possession ONLY OF hearsay evidence. “
• Between this MP, and the warden, I suggest were some 3-5 levels of persons. So as you can see clearly by unambiguous context, the averment presented with full emblems was made at the worst possible level for testimony considered reliable in a court o' flaw.
• Despite this! To take their legal department's phrase from above, This party suggests he knows what anther man believes! Not having met him or communicated with him ever before.
• Clearly he failed to see; that is to say based on the evidence presented to him, the council's very own synthetically manufactured and obviously aberrant photographs that prove incontrovertibly the man's innocence. They are here, http://www.twtanb.co.uk
• Not only, as a fifth level hearsay witness he could not possible know, but at such a distance, with his credentials one can see not only this has an appeal to authority, but it happens to be highly fallacious in its co-gent construction.
•
3. Adjudicator to an appellant.
a) “Mr X appealed against liability for the payment”.
• Comments on the fallacy.
b) This is a false representation, the appellant never stated such reasons for making the appeal, and when he made the appeal it was based on six pages of grounds provided with corroborating depositions that were incontrovertible, to the procedural flaws that wilfully took place, which may only be described in law as offences.
c) Unless the adjudicator can quote the phrase used to state the reason was 'against liability', then he has presumed them, and constructed them synthetically hence;
d) Either this was a true 'literally quoted representation', or it was a false representation.
• No person can possibly know what the appelant's reasons were or are, unless he expressly stated them. He did not.
• It is epistemologically impossible otherwise, unless the adjudicator is omniscient.
• The appellant does not know if the  adjudicator  is omniscient or not, but he does know this was not a true representation unless he can re-quote it. He is invited to show where he has quoted it literally, or show how he is able to controvert this as a false representation.
• The remainder of the appeal refusal was replete with similar such manufactured representations, that are well known for thousands of years in the arts of sophistry, casuistry, and more modernly known as spin or neuro linguistic synthetic assertions  in the visible course of conduit that pursues masked agendas.
• Those acts and omission that show the art of 'suppressio veri and suggestio falsi' where the adjudicator has with notable singularity not even mentioned a single word concerning the six or more reported offences, shows purpose and design in conduct unambiguously.
• The whole frame is also one from which one can make unambiguous contextual inferences that have been observed and correlated in other appeal refusal; in the public registry  that show the reasoning process to be unbalanced, and within the meaning of  the following three from some forty pieces from a case law section on the web.
• On irrationality.
• Bromley and London Borough Council v Greater London Council (1983) Lord Diplock "Decisions that, looked at objectively, are so devoid of any plausible justification that no reasonable body of persons could have reached".
• Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985) Lord Diplock "By irrationality I mean what can now be succinctly referred to as Wednesbury unreasonableness ............. it applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it."
• R v Housing Benefit Review Board of London Borough of Sutton ex parte Keegan (1995) Conclusion "was arrived at in the teeth of the evidence and was accordingly Wednesbury unreasonable"

e) There is no middle or other alternative under the second law of thought, and this is not a fallacy of diverted, converted or subverted 'complex ,or begging the question'.

4. Perhaps a nice one to conclude on, from a legal forum exchange.
a) ???
• Tony - 'Everybody says I am wrong so I must be right' does not wash.'
b) Tony's reply,
• “Either you are you QUOTING me or you are manufacturing SYNTHETIC sound-bites and placing them on me as false representations. I would like the reference please, it doesn't read like me.  
• I usually 'quote'  to avoid manufacturing false representations, and particularly I am careful when using FULLY distributed terms like Everybody.
• If there is NO quoted reference, it's the latter. We can leave the washing for later if need be.”
• Tony estimated this party did not know that the form Either, quote or false representation was materially equivalent with
• Either you are you making a true representation or (you are manufacturing SYNTHETIC sound-bites and placing them on me - ) a false representation.
c) ???' replie
• “Or, I am paraphrasing something you have said on several occasions.
• It is time to call a halt.”
• Nice timing to avoid the showdown!
• The question did not offer; as 'complex' or 'begging the question' fallacies do, an alternative between two things where more were implied or unstated. It offered a choice between 1- true or 2- false, the law of excluded middle.
• There is no third alternative. True and false are mutually exclusive.
d) Either as a class definition or as a particular definition of some class or thing this definition is apposite to both in the sense of negation. It uses the principles of scientific method in reasoning.
• “Those significant values not yielding false propositions constitute the membership of the class. It is not to be supposed that a class is an entity which remains invariant throughout a series of changes in its membership. Values satisfying the defining function constitute the class, and we have a different class when there is a different member­ship. Different classes may thus have the same defining property; "x is a man" determines different aggregates of individuals from day to day, ie., different sets of values satisfying the function on different occasions.”
e) “I am paraphrasing” yields a false proposition as a member of the class of TRUE representations ie; those quoted literally, and hence satisfies the class membership of FALSE ones.
• Hence It is a false representation!  SIMPLE and incontrovertibly!
• If truth and false are in any way doubtful as to meaning with empirical corroboration then Aristotle 2000 years ago, said;
a) “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false,
while to say of what isthat it is, or of what is not it is not, is true.”
b) You are invited to controvert it.

This is an extract from a forthcoming book on critical thinking.

e-mail for permission are made to general _aw ( at,    ...replace the term 'at' with ampersand, and join the two words to the left, all in lower-case) @  internet.com.  Apologies about the break up in the name, but there are far too many spam mails received by robot engine searches that trawl for machine readable email names ).