 |
 |
Well, this is very interesting. What I take away from it is that if I provide evidence that Cohen and Campbell are factually wrong about the HIV-AIDS connection, and then go on to suggest that their ideas are dangerous and an example of know-nothing leftism, I am on pretty firm ground rhetorically speaking and I have avoided making ad hominem attacks. So that just leaves the issue of how much I am annoying other list members by responding to them. Food for thought! M On 2/16/07, Phil Gasper <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > On 2/16/07, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > Ad hominem: > > > > Q claims P > > Q is a jerk. > > Therefore P is false. > > > > Note: this _includes_ personal attack (Q is a jerk), but what makes it > > an ad hominem argument is that the attack on thed person is used to > > discredit the proposition. This is ALWAYS wrong, because true > > propositions can be maintained by shitheads without ubtruing the > > proposition. > > > > The problem with the above argument is not that it is ad hominem, but that > the conclusion is too strong. Consider: > > Q claims P > Q is a jerk (at least with respect to matters having to do with P) > Therefore, (in the absence of independent evidence) there is no reason to > take P seriously. > > There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with that kind of argument to me. > > When ad hominem arguments fail, it is because the dimension along which > the person is being attacked is irrelevant to their ability to judge the > evidence in the area that is under discussion. So bad ad hominem arguments > are really fallacies of irrelevance. But there are perfectly OK ad hominem > arguments that don't commit the fallacy of irrelevance. > > Q claims to have been an eye witness to X. > Q is a notorious drunk. > Therefore, Q's testimony about X should not be taken seriously. > > Conversely, there is nothing wrong with an appropriate appeal to authority > (another form of argument that texts on informal logic typically classify as > fallacious). If the individual in question really is an authority on certain > questions, there is nothing wrong with accepting their judgment about such > matters. In fact, since scientific inquiry is a social, not an indiviual, > enterprise, it would grind to a halt if we did not behave in this way. > > --PG > > -- www.michaelbalter.com ****************************************** Michael Balter Contributing Correspondent, Science [log in to unmask] ******************************************