Let's start with a definition of the term "probability." This is the likelihood of something happening. To put it another way, probability represents the possibility of an event occurring. It's usually measured as the proportion of favourable cases to the total number of likely causes. As a result, the probability can see of as a subset of the concept of possibility. The term "possibility" refers to the ability for something to happen or be done. When we say, "Is there any possibility for you to attend an online class on a Saturday afternoon?" for example, the speaker is questioning the listener's capacity to be there for a specific reason. In such a situation, the term "probability" would be inappropriate. This is because when individuals ask about another person's ability to achieve something, they use the word possibility.
Just because something is possible it is not probable, it is possible that I can get 100 per cent in critical thinking, but it is not very probable that I will. In the same way, I can find pirate treasure tomorrow, but the probability is less than zero.
In short:
Possibility refers to anything that may exist or happen, whereas probability refers to the likelihood of an event occurring given all possible outcomes.
Probability is a measure of how probable something is to happen.
Probability is a subset of the universal set of possibilities.
Probability is less likely to happen than a possibility.
The term impossible is the opposite of possibility, whereas the phrase improbability is the reverse of probability.
The possibility is an occurrence, but the probability is a hypothesis.
A series of events must occur for a probability to become a reality.
Most of us would have had this experience where when we are trying to tell someone our opinion, but it takes a 360-degree turn and becomes a fight. We frequently use the term "argument" to refer to a disagreement or fight between two or more people. However, an argument is a set of statements that includes a conclusion and at least one premise. Many of us have been in an argument where we attempted to express our point of view to the other person, but we couldn't because the other person said something that made no sense to us. This is what we call a fallacy. A fallacy is an idea that many people think to be "true" but is wrong due to fallacious information or reasoning. In other words, they are logical flaws that undermine an argument's validity or soundness. Fallacies are sometimes used unknowingly, while other times, they are used to purposely mislead or win an argument.
In academic writing, an argument is simply a conclusion or claim with assumptions or reasons to support that assertion. "Black is a bad colour because it is connected with death," for example, might be an argument because it makes a claim and offers support for it. Regardless of whether the claim we make is true or untrue, we may employ arguments that either does not logically support that claim or are themselves not logically supported. For example, someone who associates black with power or strength could regard the above reasoning as fallacious.
There are different types of fallacies. There are four main types of fallacies, that are:
Straw Man: This fallacy tackles a separate issue rather than the one being argued, and is frequently a more radical form of the counter-argument. The goal of this misdirection is to make one's position appear stronger than it is. For example, A may remark, "I'd rather have a cat as a pet," and B might respond, "Why do you hate dogs?" A never stated that they disliked dogs; rather, they stated that they like cats. B either assumed or claimed that A was anti-dogs rather than pro-cats. Now A must defend that they do not dislike dogs, which radically alters the flow of the conversation.
Ad Hominem: Rather than reasoning, this fallacy uses personal attacks. This fallacy happens when someone rejects or condemns another point of view based on the person's personal qualities, ethnic background, physical appearance, or other irrelevant traits. For instance, using gender to belittle an opposing gender's argument - "This is a female issue. How can you have an opinion on this as a man?"
Ad Ignorantiam: An argument to ignorance contends that a claim must be true since it has not been proven false and there is no evidence to the contrary. For example, "Nobody can genuinely show that God does not exist, hence God must exist."
Ad Populum: The argument defends a viewpoint by appealing to the collective opinion of a big group of individuals, such as the majority, the general public, and so on. The inferred authority is based purely on the size of the referenced group, not on its qualifications.
Benedict Anderson, well recognised for his work on nationalism, which he published in his book Imagined Communities. Anderson defines the nation as, “an imagined political community – and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign…It is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion” (pg- 49)
"The nation is imagined as limited because even the largest of them, encompassing perhaps a billion living human beings, has finite, if elastic, boundaries, beyond which lie other nations; No nation imagines itself coterminous with mankind. The most messianic nationalists do not dream of a day when all the members of the human race will join their nation in the way that it was possible, in certain epochs, for, say, Christians to dream of a wholly Christian planet." (pg-50)
The country, according to Anderson, is a fake political community with a limited scope and sovereign nature. It is imagined because the reality of even the tiniest nation exceeds what a single person can fathom; no one can know every person in a country, just as no one can comprehend every aspect of its economy, geography, history, and so on. Because it is never considered to be co-extensive with humanity itself, regardless of size, the imagined community is limited. The imagined community is sovereign because, unlike monarchy, it does not draw its legitimacy from divine intervention the country has its power, was founded in its name and generates its people. Because it demonstrates a strong horizontal comradeship that connects all citizens, regardless of class, nationality, or colour, the nation may be considered a community. According to Anderson, a crucial differentiating feature of this type of comradeship is its members' willingness to die for it.
Hegemony is a phrase that is commonly used as a term to describe a collection of concepts that has a relatively dominating position and a tendency to become logical and sensible and obvious, preventing the propagation or even articulation of other ideas.
In his Prison Writings, Gramsci develops the concept of hegemony. The concept arose from his critique of "mechanical historical materialism," a deterministic economist's understanding of history. According to Gramsci, hegemony refers to a group's "cultural, moral, and ideological" leadership over allied and subordinate organisations. This leadership, however, is not just exerted in the superstructure, it is not merely ethical-political, since it must also be economic, and founded on the function that the leading group performs in the core of economic activity. It is founded on the balance between consent and force. Gramsci initially observed that in Europe, the bourgeoisie, the ruling class, controlled with the permission of the people. The bourgeoisie was hegemonic because it safeguarded some subaltern interests in exchange for their support. The proletariat aimed to dethrone the bourgeoisie's leadership and establish its hegemony.
One of the best examples of hegemony would be how Indian politicians are pushing the idea of Hindutva. In both Indian and Western media, the phrase "Hindu nationalism" has been extensively used, with Prime Minister Godi (oops Narendra Modi) and his governing party being labelled as supporting a Hindu nationalist agenda.
Comments
Post a Comment