I may regret this, but...
I think there are several people here who might benefit from reading this excellent essay on Jeffersonian debate, 'The Mannerly Art of Disagreement,' by Macedon.
http://members.aol.com/MacedonPg/tmaod.htm
And yes, I'm aware that now everyone is going to eat me alive, but I've seen a *lot* of behavior from people that I respect this spring that I find very disturbing. Usually it isn't *what* people say that annoys or angers me, but *how* they say it. I could make a big long post on this subject, but Macedon does it better than I ever could in his essay.
Tiger M
On Tue, 15 May 2001 Tigerm1019@aol.com wrote:
I may regret this, but...
I think there are several people here who might benefit from reading this excellent essay on Jeffersonian debate, 'The Mannerly Art of Disagreement,' by Macedon.
All very civilising stuff. However, I disagree with his section on 'ad hominem attack'. Argumentum ad hominem is a specific form of logical fallacy, in which one claims that ones opponent is wrong because of his/her personal failings. This is logically invalid, in that the conclusion does not follow from the premiss. Macedon seems to get this confused with straightforward insults, which are not logically fallacious.
For example, 'Your observations don't prove that the Earth goes round the Sun, because you're a useless wanker with no more right to live on God's Earth than a weasel' commits the ad hominem fallacy. On the other hand, 'The motion of the Earth is demonstrated quite unambiguously by Foucault's pendulum, you stupid cunt', is a valid argument followed by an insult.
I also think Macedon is far too absolutist about expressions of anger. There is a game which one can observe, in which one participant in a debate goads their opponent more and more until eventually their opponent gets riled, at which point their opponent is deemed somehow to have lost. It's silly and childish. People do get angry, people do get upset, and any of us can be goaded into aggression: this has no bearing on the validity or otherwise of their arguments, and it shouldn't be seen as some kind of victory for the goader.
Finally, there is one other point I would add to Macedon's guidelines: anyone who responds to a point with 'Bzzt!' should be shot in the knees.
Iain
In message Pine.OSF.3.96.1010516104017.30747A-100000@bscomp, Iain Coleman ijc@bas.ac.uk writes
For example, 'Your observations don't prove that the Earth goes round the Sun, because you're a useless wanker with no more right to live on God's Earth than a weasel' commits the ad hominem fallacy. On the other hand, 'The motion of the Earth is demonstrated quite unambiguously by Foucault's pendulum, you stupid cunt', is a valid argument followed by an insult.
Trust an astrophysicist to pick that example:-) It's interesting to see the Church's argument nowadays as to why it was right to treat dissenters as it did...
I thought he did understand the difference, but was not very good at demonstrating what he meant. The above is a much better demonstration of how to be rude without indulging in the ad hominem fallacy.
--- Julia wrote:
Trust an astrophysicist to pick that example:-) It's interesting to see the Church's argument nowadays as to why it was right to treat dissenters as it did...
I think the Pope admitted it had all been a ghastly mistake in 1993. Better late than never !
Stephen.
____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
In message 20010516162553.68021.qmail@web12206.mail.yahoo.com, Stephen Date stephend999@yahoo.co.uk writes
--- Julia wrote:
Trust an astrophysicist to pick that example:-) It's interesting to see the Church's argument nowadays as to why it was right to treat dissenters as it did...
I think the Pope admitted it had all been a ghastly mistake in 1993. Better late than never !
Even after that, there's a certain amount of wriggling along the lines of "Well, Galileo was technically correct, but it was right to insist that he recant, because he was disturbing simple minds with thoughts they couldn't understand." I can't remember whether I got this in private email or on the newsgroup where we were discussing this - I'll se if I can find the exact argument being put forth, as the priest who explained this was much better at presenting the Church's case fairly than I would be paraphrasing it.
This is drifting off-topic now - if it gets beyond a direct comparison with government control in B7, best take it to the spin-list. I'll leave the follow-up set to the Lyst for the moment, as it might be a fruitful source of further debate on controlling the minds of the general population.
Julia Jones julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk wrote:
In message Pine.OSF.3.96.1010516104017.30747A-100000@bscomp, Iain Coleman ijc@bas.ac.uk writes
For example, 'Your observations don't prove that the Earth goes round the Sun, because you're a useless wanker with no more right to live on God's Earth than a weasel' commits the ad hominem fallacy. On the other hand, 'The motion of the Earth is demonstrated quite unambiguously by Foucault's pendulum, you stupid cunt', is a valid argument followed by an insult.
Trust an astrophysicist to pick that example:-) It's interesting to see the Church's argument nowadays as to why it was right to treat dissenters as it did...
I thought he did understand the difference, but was not very good at demonstrating what he meant. The above is a much better demonstration of how to be rude without indulging in the ad hominem fallacy. -- Julia Jones "Science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. It is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - The Science of Discworld
In one of the Sherlock Holmes stories didn't he say to the effect that it did not matter to him whether the Earth went round the sun or the moon?
Jacqui __________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
In message 47A0C878.2F6F0839.4BF51BCE@netscape.net, jacquispeel@netscape.net writes
In one of the Sherlock Holmes stories didn't he say to the effect that it did not matter to him whether the Earth went round the sun or the moon?
Yes, although unfortunately my books are still in various boxes, so I can't check which one. It was information that was of no relevance to him, as it had no bearing on his work.
Now if we *really* want to get nit-picking, we could start on relativity, leading to the thread about B7 being set in a non- relativistic universe...
Jacqui said:
In one of the Sherlock Holmes stories didn't he say to the effect that it did not matter to him whether the Earth went round the sun or the moon?
The first Sherlock Holmes story includes a long list of things Holmes knew and another one of things he didn't. In various later stories, Holmes is shown to have a detailed knowledge of things Watson said he was completely ignorant of. Which just shows (ObB7) the danger of writing a long series without a bible.
-(Y)
-
Dana Shilling -
Iain Coleman -
jacquispeel＠netscape.net -
Julia Jones -
Stephen Date -
Tigerm1019＠aol.com