Meta Knowledge/ Knowledge Calculus - classification
of Action Research
SOURCE Original : https://be4gen.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/perception-basics-harvesting-rationality-impulses-2/
PERCEPTION BASICS HARVESTING RATIONALITY & IMPULSES
(Authors’ team; Sanober, Hamza, and Hasan combatant of knowledge)
STARTER
The core issue faced to public wisdom is functional characteristics of brain and heart in articulating; perception, understanding, rationality, reasoning, assertion of predicates, propositions, facts and deriving the truth or false of argumentum.
This rundown is marginally constituted of excerpts to distinguish human intellect groups’ myth skills which enable them to perceive and grasp argumentum and decision track. More so, the two human organs virtual roles are implicated in decision mechanics at individual or shared group levels; heart-instinct and brain-power, both are practiced in mutually exclusive rituals. For wisdom these reap argumentum and deliver inference by means of embedded ability (acumen), which one out-and-out?
Each of the above has polarised human groups who own either supernatural or rationality oriented wisdom. Thus, the impact of these models have cumulated on groups’; economy, science and technology (S&T), research and multi-dimensional problem solving competence specifics differently over long span of past. Both of the contrasting classics have indoctrinated contrasting doctrines, one is champion of rationality and earned prosperity and science and technology, another are guardian of ‘faith’ goodness but deficit of affluence. The fundamentals of both are regenerated here one by one for instant perception building;
HEART CAUSED IMPULSE
Whims/ Caprice/ Impulse/ Instinct; in public wisdom these concern deductions by heart mysticism myth. In this case the main empirical base is to grip impulses respective components’ interlaced hierarchy or network detailing their ‘what’, ‘why’, ‘how’ and ‘when’. ‘What’: comprehends components, ‘Why’: execution navigation inter-connectivity and ‘How’: operational logistics’ life cycle articulating a scientific conjectural model of current conception in question and ‘when’ time suitability. The platform of their argumentation model is muddled, and often signifies to ‘DO-NOTKNOW’ domain which is technically inexplicit. Elaborately, down the line;
Certain Humans associate trust in heart instinct to secure impulses on narrated facts of a conceived problem components as a discrete pre-empt of its conclusion, while the mystery of their deduction pathology is cloudy to public wisdom. How these impulses function that varies person to person assessment? The perception history suggests that there were days when the guidance was solicited from the nature by means of revelation, vision, oracle, prophecy, urge or in some form or other that classics whim – for viable action truth of indecisive situations. More so argumentation was least concerned to conversation engine rather sermons to audience to “hit the nail on the head.”
Nevertheless, the heart-instinct conclusive model keeps on to logical pursuits of deductions’ analytics. The mappings of both are a diagnostic issue but both are in use by different human groups mutually exclusive. The deliberation on pluses and minuses of the indicated roles are taken up in another caption “WHETHER ‘BRAIN-POWER’ OR ‘HEART-IMPULSE’ PLINTHS ‘HUMAN GEN’” by same authors’ team.
Note-1: The modern education systems might empower intellect developing rationality and reasoning quite transparently, while impulses and reasoning are faith mystic fictions by specific Guru’s hearts and not yet to academic books at large.
Note-2: Rationality may be stressed in perceiving grasping human feelings; mood disorder, depression, pleasure, sorrow, emotions and many likewise abstraction terms’ mathematical order, but impulses may respond imprecisely ignoring the course-refined breakdowns.
Note-3: The underneath exposition is on rationality model of intellect, a powerful contender of whims intellect.
BRAIN POWER (MIND ORIENTED) REASONING AND DEDUCTION
Here, the focus is brain power; rightfulness, sharpness, fairness on instant triggering process for outcome which harvests the faculty of thinking, reasoning, and applying knowledge, a pursuit of mind exclusively. A selective refresh is encompasses pertinent definitions and reasoning fundamentals with illustrations.
As such, the calculus of logic provides analytical engine to resolve argumentum and executing logic algebra to construe empirical facts which are expressed by predicates; mathematical assertions. In simple words understanding is expressed by facts and logical operators’ grammar. However, it is a well formed analytics which is part of various educational systems’ manifestations aiming to sharpen brain power and perception skills. These include awareness of;
§ Contradiction; the statement cannot be false and true at the same time on same premises.
§ Circular Reasoning; also known as paradoxical thinking or circular logic, is a logical fallacy referred in underneath narration in which “the reasoner begins with what is trying to end up with”, a backward chaining truth. The individual components of a circular argument will sometimes be logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and will not lack relevance. Circular logic cannot prove a conclusion because, if the conclusion is doubted, the premise which leads to it will also be doubted.
§ Paradox; is a statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which (if true) defies logic or reason, similar to circular reasoning. The word paradox is often used interchangeably with contradiction. Refer to renowned ‘Theseus Ship Paradox’ that raises the question of whether an object which has had all its component parts replaced remains fundamentally the same object.
Typically, however, quoted paradoxical statements do not imply a real contradiction and the puzzling results can be rectified by demonstrating one or more of the premises themselves that are not really true, a play on words, faulty and/or cannot all be true together. But many paradoxes, such as Curry’s paradox do not yet have universally accepted resolutions.
§ Logic is the science that evaluates arguments and reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference. It allows us to analyze a piece of reasoning, and determine whether it is correct or not. To use the technical terms, one may determine whether the reasoning is valid or invalid.
However, how to use logic; one must decide whether logic is the right tool for specific applicability. In public wisdom the logical arguments is only simple Boolean logic. Other sorts of mathematical logic, such as fuzzy logic, obey different rules for coherence.
Some Illustrations;
The logical arguments are built by propositions, or statements, either true or false;
“The first programmable computer was built in Cambridge.”
“Dogs cannot see colour.”
“Berlin is the capital of Germany.”
The proposition is the meaning of the statement. So “A God exists” and “There exists a God” both express the same proposition.
What is an argument?
To dispense argument consider first its prerequisites;
Statement; is a sentence that is either true or false, such as “The cat is on the mat.” Many sentences are not statements, such as “Close the door, please” , “How old are you?” That consists of;
Premises; One or more propositions are necessary for the argument, stated explicitly, as evidence (or reasons) for accepting the argument and its conclusions, phrases by such as “because”, “since”, “obviously” and so on.
Inference; Premises of the argument are used to obtain further propositions. In inference, one or more propositions are accepted, and derive a new proposition valid inference by ‘implies’.
Conclusion; is a statement that indicates of what the arguer is trying to convince the reader/listener. There can be only one conclusion in a single argument. It is proposition of final stage of inference by phrases such as “therefore”, “it follows that”, “we conclude” and so on.
Argument is, “a connected series of statement(s) of one or more premises and one and one conclusion which establishes a definite proposition”.
Types of Argument; either deductive or inductive;
A deductive argument provides conclusive proof of its conclusions; if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. A deductive argument is either valid or invalid.
An inductive argument is one where the premises provide some evidence for the truth of the conclusion. Inductive arguments are not valid or invalid.
Example of a deductive argument:
§ Every event has a cause (premise)
§ The universe has a beginning (premise)
§ All beginnings involve an event (premise)
§ This implies that the beginning of the universe involved an event (inference)
§ Therefor the universe has cause (inference and conclusions)
Note: that the conclusion of one argument might be a premise in another argument.
Recognizing argument;
Sometimes, the conclusions might be stated first, and the premises stated afterwards in support of the conclusion. This is perfectly valid.
Arguments are harder to recognize than premises or conclusions. Some statements look like arguments, but are not.
Example: “If the Bible is accurate, Jesus must either have been insane, an evil liar, or the Son of God.”
The above is not an argument, it is a conditional statement.
Examples:
“God created you; therefore do your duty to God.”
The phrase “do your duty to God” is neither true nor false.
Therefore it is not a proposition, and the sentence is not an argument.
Consider two statements of the form “A because B”. The first statement:
“My car will not start because there is something wrong with the engine.”
The statement is not an argument for there being something wrong with the engine; it is an explanation of why the car will not start. We are explaining A, using B as the explanation. We cannot argue from A to B using a statement of the form “A because B”.
However, we can argue from B to A using such a statement. Consider:
“There must be something wrong with the engine of my car, because it will not start.”
Here we are arguing for A, offering B as evidence. The statement “A because B” is then an argument.
To make the difference clear, note that “A because B” is equivalent to “B therefore A”. The two statements then become:
“There is something wrong with the engine, therefore my car will not start.”
And:
“My car will not start, therefore there is something wrong with the engine.”
If we remember that we are supposed to be arguing that there is something wrong with the engine, it is clear that only the second statement is a valid argument.
Implication in detail; the fact that a deductive argument is valid does not imply that its conclusion holds. This is because of the slightly counter-intuitive nature of implication, which we must now consider more carefully.
Obviously a valid argument can consist of true propositions. However, an argument may be entirely valid even if it contains only false propositions.
Examples;
§ All insects haven wings (premise)
§ Woodlice are insects (premise)
§ Therefore woodlice have wings (conclusion)
Here, the conclusion is not true because the argument’s premises are false. If the argument’s premises were true, however, the conclusion would be true. The argument is thus entirely valid.
More subtly, we can reach a true conclusion from one or more false premises, as in:
§ All fish live in the sea (premise)
§ Dolphins are fish (premise)
§ Therefore dolphins live in the sea (conclusion)
However, the one thing we cannot do is reach a false conclusion through valid inference from true premises.
Reasoning/ Argument Fundamentals:
Rational Deductions and Heuristics;
Deductions;
Fallacies are classified as informal (premises fail to support the proposed conclusion, but the argument is structured properly) or formal (logical structure is flawed). Most frequent misuse is in jurisprudence argumentum beating public wisdom.
Material Fallacies; The taxonomy of material fallacies
Fallacy of accident or sweeping generalization; is a generalization that disregards exceptions.
Example; Argument: Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people, therefore, surgeons are criminals.
Problem: Cutting people is only sometimes a crime.
Argument: It is illegal for a stranger to enter someone’s home uninvited. Firefighters enter people’s homes uninvited; therefore fire fighters are breaking the law.
Problem: The exception does not break nor define the rule; where accountable exception is ignored.
Converse fallacy of accident or hasty generalization: argues from a special case to a general rule.
Example; Argument: Every person I’ve met speaks English, so it must be true that all people speak English.
Problem: Those who have been met are a representative subset of the entire set. Also called reverse accident, destroying the exception.
Irrelevant conclusion: diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than addressing it directly.
Example; Argument: Bush believes that war is justifiable, therefore it must be justifiable.
Problem: Bush can be wrong.
Special cases: appeal to a class.
Purely personal considerations, popular sentiment appeal to the majority fear, conventional propriety – appeal to authority to arouse pity for getting one’s conclusion accepted forwarding the proposition under dispute without any certain proof assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim to discredit claim.
Something that draws attention away from the central issue;
Affirming the consequent; draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by confusing necessary and sufficient conditions.
Example; Argument: If people have the flu, they cough. Torres is coughing. Therefore, Torres has the flu.
Problem: Other things, such as asthma, can cause someone to cough. The argument treats having the flu as a necessary condition of coughing; in fact, having the flu is a sufficient condition of coughing, but it is not necessary to have the flu for one to cough.
Argument: If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, therefore it rained.
Problem: There are other ways by which the ground could get wet (spilled water).
Denying the antecedent; draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by confusing necessary and sufficient conditions.
Example; Argument: If it is raining outside, it must be cloudy. It is not raining outside. Therefore, it is not cloudy.
Problem: There does not have to be rain in order for there to be clouds. Rain is a sufficient condition of cloudiness, but it is not necessarily true that clouds mean it is raining.
Begging the question; demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion.
Example; Argument: Billy always tells the truth, I know this because he told me so.
Problem: Billy may be lying.
Also called arguing in a circle, assuming the answer; begging the question does not preclude the possibility that the statement is incorrect, and it is not sufficient proof in and of itself.
Fallacy of false cause; incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another. Non Sequitur is Latin for “It does not follow.”
Example; Argument: I hear the rain falling outside my window; therefore, the sun is not shining.
Problem: The conclusion is false because the sun can shine while it is raining.
Special cases: believing that temporal succession implies a causal relation.
Example; Argument: After Billy was vaccinated he developed autism, therefore the vaccine caused his autism.
Problem: This does not provide any evidence that the vaccine was the cause. The characteristics of autism may generally become noticeable at the age just following the typical age children receive vaccinations.
Believing that correlation implies a causal relation
Example; Argument: More cows die in India in the summer months. More ice cream is consumed in summer months. Therefore, the consumption of ice cream in the summer months is killing Indian cows.
Problem: No premise suggests the ice cream consumption is causing the deaths. The deaths and consumption could be unrelated, or something else could be causing both, such as summer heat. This is also called causation versus correlation.
Fallacy of many questions; loaded question: group’s more than one question in the form of a single question.
Example; Argument: Have you stopped beating your wife?
Problem: Yes or no answer will still be an admission of guilt to beating your wife at some point.
Straw man: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.
Straw man: A weak proposition posited only to be demolished by a simple countering argument. So you can knock down your own straw man! Big deal. The question is how you can deal with real problems.
Example; Person A: Sunny days are good.
Person B: If all days were sunny, we’d never have rain, and without rain, we’d have famine and death. Therefore, you are wrong.
Problem: B has misrepresented A’s claim by falsely suggesting that A claimed that only sunny days are good, and then B refuted the misrepresented version of the claim, rather than refuting A’s original assertion.
“Same Team” Fallacy; A case where an arguer knows the main criticisms of their argument, and then asserts that the counter argument should have the same criticisms (based on a genetic fallacy of its arguer). It is often characterized by the fallacy of dismissal after the distinctions and differences are brought out and the Fallacy of repetition thereafter.
Example; Argument I: Skeptics are religious alike any theist, and have just as much faith as well.
Argument II: Science is just as dogmatic and religious as any other religious institution.
Conclusion: Skeptics believe through faith, and science is a religion.
Problem: The member being asked (skeptics, science) to join the team (religion) is not a member by induced fallacies such as conflation, equivocation, spurious similarity, or bad analogy.
Simplified: Ice cream and shampoo are the same, they both have egg as an ingredient.
Note: a simplified version of absence of genetic fallacy, exposing basic fault of argument.
Verbal Fallacies: Verbal fallacies are those in which a conclusion is obtained by improper or ambiguous use of words. They are generally classified as follows.
Equivocation: consists in employing the same word in two or more senses, e.g. in a syllogism , the middle term being used in one sense in the major and another in the minor premise, so that in fact there are four not three terms.
Example Argument: All heavy things have a great mass; Jim has a “heavy heart”; therefore Jim’s heart has a great mass.
Problem: Heavy describes more than just weight. (Jim is sad.)
Connotation fallacies: Connotation fallacies occur when a dysphemistic word is substituted for the speaker’s actual quote and used to discredit the argument. It is a form of attribution fallacy.
Fallacy of composition: “From each to all”; Arguing from some property of constituent parts, to the conclusion that the composite item has that property. This can be acceptable (i.e., not a fallacy) with certain arguments such as spatial arguments (e.g. “all the parts of the car are in the garage, therefore the car is in the garage”).
Example Argument: All the musicians in a band (constituent parts) are highly skilled; therefore the band itself (composite item) is highly skilled.
Problem: The band members may be skilled musicians but lack the ability to function properly as a group.
Division: the converse of the preceding, arguing from a property of the whole, to each constituent part.
Example Argument: “The university (the whole) is 700 years old, therefore, all the staff (each part) are 700 years old”.
Problem: Each and every person currently on staff is younger than 700 years. The university continues to exist even when, one by one, each and every person on the original staff leaves and is replaced by a younger person.
Example; Argument: “This cereal is part of a nutritious breakfast therefore the cereal is nutritious.”
Problem: Simply because the breakfast taken as a whole is nutritious does not necessarily mean that each part of that breakfast is nutritious.
Proof by verbosity: sometimes colloquially referred to as argumentum verbosum – a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.
Accent: occurs only in speaking and consists of emphasizing the wrong word in a sentence. e.g., “He is a fairly good pianist”, according to the emphasis on the words, may imply praise of a beginner’s progress or insult of an expert pianist.
§ “He is a fairly good pianist.” This argument places emphasis on the fact that “He”, as opposed to anyone else, is a fairly good pianist.
§ ”He is a fairly good pianist.” This is an assertion that he “is” a good pianist, as opposed to a poor one.
§ ”He is a fairly good pianist.” This is an assertion that his ability as a pianist is fair, perhaps in need of improvement.
§ “He is a fairly good pianist.” This is isolating his ability as only being good in the field of musical instruments, namely, the piano, and possibly excludes the idea that he is good at anything else.
§ “I killed my wife?” in response to a police officer asking if he killed his wife. In court, the police officer states his reply to his question was “I killed my wife.”
Figure of Speech: Figure of Speech, the confusion between the metaphorical and ordinary uses of a word or phrase.
Example: The sailor was at home on the sea.
Problem: The expression ‘to be at home’ does not literally mean that one’s domicile is in that location.
Fallacy of misplaced concreteness: identified by Whitehead in his discussion of metaphysics, this refers to the reification of concepts which exist only in discussion.
Example 1; Timmy argues:
1. Billy is a good tennis player.
2. Therefore, Billy is ‘good’, that is to say a morally good person.
Here the problem is that the word good has different meanings, which is to say that it is an ambiguous word. In the premise, Timmy says that Billy is good at some particular activity, in this case tennis. In the conclusion, Timmy states that Billy is a morally good person. These are clearly two different senses of the word “good”. The premise might be true but the conclusion can still be false: Billy might be the best tennis player in the world but a rotten person morally. However, it is not legitimate to infer he is a bad person on the ground there has been a fallacious argument on the part of Timmy.
Nothing concerning Billy’s moral qualities is to be inferred from the premise. Appropriately, since it plays on an ambiguity, this sort of fallacy is called the fallacy of equivocation, that is, equating two incompatible terms or claims.
Example 2; One posits the argument:
1. Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
2. Eating a hamburger is better than nothing.
3. Therefore, eating a hamburger is better than eternal happiness.
This argument has the appearance of an inference that applies transitivity of the two-placed relation is better than, which in this critique we grant is a valid property. The argument is an example of syntactic ambiguity. In fact, the first premise semantically does not predicate an attribute of the subject, as would for instance the assertion.
Nothing is better than eternal happiness: In fact it is semantically equivalent to the following universal quantification:
Everything fails to be better than eternal happiness.
So instantiating this fact with eating a hamburger, it logically follows that Eating a hamburger fails to be better than eternal happiness.
Note: that the premise A hamburger is better than nothing does not provide anything to this argument. This fact really means something such as Eating a hamburger is better than eating nothing at all.
Thus this is a fallacy of equivocation.
Deductive Fallacy;
Deductive 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 which is problematic for any reason, and thus encompasses informal fallacies as well as formal fallacies.
The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument’s premises or its conclusion (see below (*1). 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.
(*1): Fallacy fallacy; To say that an argument is fallacious is to claim that there is no sufficiently strong logical connection between the premises and the conclusion, so it is unwarranted to conclude that a proposition is false simply because some argument for it is fallacious. It’s easy to come up with fallacious arguments for any proposition, whatever its truth-value. What’s hard is to find a cogent argument for a proposition, even when it’s true.
Formalisms and frameworks used to understand fallacies;
For classifications of fallacies in general the most famous are those of Francis Bacon and J. S. Mill. See Rd. Whateley’s Logic, bk. v.; A. de Morgan, Formal Logic (1847) ; A. Sidgwick, Fallacies (1883) and other textbooks.
Apophasis and argument by innuendo:
Argument by innuendo involves implicitly suggesting a conclusion without stating it outright. For example, a job reference that says a former employee “was never caught taking money from the cash box” In this example the overly specific nature of the innuendo implies that the employee was a thief, even though it does not make (or justify) a direct negative statement.
Amphiboly: is the result of ambiguity of grammatical structure.
Example; The position of the adverb “only” in a sentence starting with “He only said that” results in a sentence in which it is uncertain as to which of the other three words the speaker is intending to modify with the adverb.
Example; Argument: ”This cereal is part of a nutritious breakfast therefore the cereal is nutritious.”
Problem: Simply because the breakfast taken as a whole is nutritious does not necessarily mean that each part of that breakfast is nutritious.
Figure of Speech: Figure of Speech, the confusion between the metaphorical and ordinary uses of a word or phrase.
Example; The sailor was at home on the sea.
Problem: The expression ‘to be at home’ does not literally mean that one’s domicile is in that location.
TAUTOLOGY
The predicate which is always truth for all its variance prescribes tautology.
What is tautology?
A key property of tautologies in propositional logic is that an effective method exists for testing whether a given expression is always satisfied (or, whether its negation is not capable of being satisfied). Basically just repeats the premise, universal unconditioned truth always valid, because they depend on the assumption that they are already correct.
A statement is called a tautology if it contains a redundancy and says the same thing twice over in different words–e.g., ‘ John is the father of Charles and Charles is a son of John.’
In logic, however, a tautology is defined as a statement that excludes no logical possibilities–’Either it is raining or it is not raining.’ Another way of putting this is to say that a tautology is ‘true in all possible worlds.’
Tautology is a verbal device which consists in defining like by like . . .. Since it is magical, it can of course only take refuge behind the argument of authority: thus do parents at the end of their tether reply to child who keeps on asking for explanations: ‘because that’s how it is,’ or even better: ‘just because, that’s all.’” (Roland Barthes, Mythologies, Macmillan, 1972).
Everyday Tautologies;
§ I never make predictions, especially about the future.
§ I made it with my own hands for you.
§ The vote was completely and totally unanimous.
§ Say it over again once more.
§ Crows are either black, or they are not black.
§ Drones invade precisely during day and night.
§ Children are fatal victim of gun culture all over.
§ Do not kill me I am starving near death.
§ He worships God or No God.
§ The Uncaused Cause.
Extra Tautologies;
§ All crows are either black, or they are not black.
§ The dress cost me $100 dollars.
§ In my opinion, I think that…
§ So the organization expects joint cooperation from its members.
§ This is a short summary of…
§ They are distributing free gifts!
§ One after the other in succession…
§ What is your PIN number (the acronym stands for Personal Identification Number).
§ ATM machine (the acronym stands for Automated Teller Machine).
§ Very unique.
§ To reiterate again.
§ Please R.S.V.P. (that acronym stands for the French Respondez, s’il vous plait, or, Respond, please).
§ First priority.
§ Close proximity.
§ They decided to return again for a second time to that old ancient house.
3 am. in the morning.
§ Necessary requirement.
§ The reason is because.
§ And etc. (Et cetera is latin for and so on, so now you’ve got ‘and and so on’).
§ CD-ROM disc (The disc part is taken care of with the CD – compact disc.).
§ Adequate enough.
§ Today’s modern technology.
§ It is new innovation.
§ Lonely isolation.
§ Thanks to their joint collaboration the archaeologists found the handwritten manuscript in the destroyed ruins of the monastery.
§ Either it will rain tomorrow, or it won’t. (logical tautology).
§ I never make predictions, especially about the future.
§ I ate a tuna fish sandwich.
§ The plumber fixed our hot water heater.
§ Frozen Ice.
§ The group wanted to climb up to the very summit at the top of the mountain.
§ Added Bonus.
§ A wishful start, one might say, but it was certainly a time of surreal dreams.
§ I made it with my own hands for you.
§ Me myself personally cordially invite you to the party.
§ Puzzling problem, isn’t it?
§ I’m having an ‘An American Werewolf in London’ movie night at my place.
§ It was his usual, habitual custom to have a bacon sandwich for breakfast.
§ It’s déjà vu all over again.
§ That is indeed a sad misfortune.
§ Seafaring mariner.
§ The wall was marred by a small, tiny speck of paint.
§ Suspense thriller.
§ First and foremost, let’s begin.
§ Bits and pieces.
§ All well and good; to all intents and purposes; cool, calm, and collected.
§ The vast majority.
§ The vote was completely and totally unanimous.
§ She herself had written her autobiography of her own life in just two weeks.
§ Forward planning.
§ With malice toward none, with charity for all. – Abraham Lincoln.
§ I upgraded the RAM memory of my computer.
§ A huge great big man.
§ Say it over again once more.
Acknowledgement; the authors’ urge of core knowledge was encountered on surfing various relevant Wikipedia, so it might not be possible to acknowledge to each and every source, thanks to all libraries and other facilitating sources. The rundown in question is compiled with original argumentation of authors’ team allowing recursive usage in anonymity by knowledge combatants.
Dedicated to Anonymous Combatants of Knowledge
**** THE END ****
SHARE WITH FRIENDS WISDOM POSTINGS:
- CAUSE AND EVENTS – SPATIAL And TEMPORAL RESPECTIVELY
- WHETHER ‘BRAIN-POWER’ OR ‘HEART-IMPULSE’ PLINTHS ‘HUMAN GEN’?
************
Advertisements
No comments:
Post a Comment