Famous Fallacies of Filmland
So, I'm here in Korea for ISIT. Sorry for not live blogging like I did went I went to France a couple of years ago. I've been busy. Also tired.
This year I'm a finalist for the Student Paper Award that they give at this conference. I was two years ago as well, and both times it's been mostly an exercise in increasing the pressure in a situation when there was already a lot of pressure. I didn't win last time, and I don't really expect to win this year, since I don't think my paper is actually all that good, and a friend of mine from Berkeley, who's also a finalist, has a really awesome paper that totally deserves to win (also he's a very good speaker, so I expect his talk to be better than mine was).
Two years ago was, I think, the first time the award was offered, and I naturally expected that there would be one winner. But, as it turns out, two of the finalist papers both won (neither mine, of course). And then last year three papers won (but I wasn't a finalist, so whatever). I've decided that I really don't like the idea of there being multiple winners, because if you win, you'd rather be the only one, and if you lose, only one winner means that you can imagine that you were in 2nd place.
Now, the argument I just made is a logical fallacy, because, of course, whether there are multiple winners and whether or not I win are not independent events. I realized that this particular fallacy was made once before, very very famously. Anyone know when that was?
It's in the Crispin's Day speech from Henry V. As you may recall, the English forces are preparing for battle, vastly outnumbered against the French, and they all know they're screwed, when Westmerland comments:
O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work today!
King Henry, having just made a discreet entrance, responds as follows:
What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmerland! No, my fair cousin.
If we are mark'd to die, we are [enough]
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honor.
Then he goes on for awhile, blah blah blah, stirring speech, soldiers cheer, they beat the French, hooray hooray, Henry gets all kissy kissy with the French girl. But, you know, his argument is ridiculous, because but one ten thousand men might actually have some influence on whether they win or lose.
So, if I made the same argument as Henry did, then I guess Henry is a metaphor for me. If so, I think the morale of the story is that I should figure out who the French are in this metaphor. Also, the French girl.
ETA: Three winners, none of them me. Big shock. None of them were my Berkeley friend either. Big shock, but this time without sarcasm.
This year I'm a finalist for the Student Paper Award that they give at this conference. I was two years ago as well, and both times it's been mostly an exercise in increasing the pressure in a situation when there was already a lot of pressure. I didn't win last time, and I don't really expect to win this year, since I don't think my paper is actually all that good, and a friend of mine from Berkeley, who's also a finalist, has a really awesome paper that totally deserves to win (also he's a very good speaker, so I expect his talk to be better than mine was).
Two years ago was, I think, the first time the award was offered, and I naturally expected that there would be one winner. But, as it turns out, two of the finalist papers both won (neither mine, of course). And then last year three papers won (but I wasn't a finalist, so whatever). I've decided that I really don't like the idea of there being multiple winners, because if you win, you'd rather be the only one, and if you lose, only one winner means that you can imagine that you were in 2nd place.
Now, the argument I just made is a logical fallacy, because, of course, whether there are multiple winners and whether or not I win are not independent events. I realized that this particular fallacy was made once before, very very famously. Anyone know when that was?
It's in the Crispin's Day speech from Henry V. As you may recall, the English forces are preparing for battle, vastly outnumbered against the French, and they all know they're screwed, when Westmerland comments:
O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work today!
King Henry, having just made a discreet entrance, responds as follows:
What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmerland! No, my fair cousin.
If we are mark'd to die, we are [enough]
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honor.
Then he goes on for awhile, blah blah blah, stirring speech, soldiers cheer, they beat the French, hooray hooray, Henry gets all kissy kissy with the French girl. But, you know, his argument is ridiculous, because but one ten thousand men might actually have some influence on whether they win or lose.
So, if I made the same argument as Henry did, then I guess Henry is a metaphor for me. If so, I think the morale of the story is that I should figure out who the French are in this metaphor. Also, the French girl.
ETA: Three winners, none of them me. Big shock. None of them were my Berkeley friend either. Big shock, but this time without sarcasm.