Hi,
I understand the implications of accusing the preson rather than its
intellectual products, but i still don't agree that the allegation "this
is ad hominem" can be used as an argument.
For example, if A said something biased, and i want to commend on it i
can say:
1) I don't agree because A IS biased. This is ad hominem.
2) I don't agree because A's idea is biased. This is not ad hominem.
Using the argument that an allegation is ad hominem in order to refute the
allegation presupposes that
1) biased ideas do not always come from biased people
2) biased people do not always produce biased ideas
So it is like we do not consider people responsible for their ideas and
actions, to which i disagree. So i believe that this argument should not
be used in order to refute allegations.
e.g. if i conclude that I don't agree because A is biased,
the answer that i expect is a refutation of my impression that that person
does biased things and produces biased ideas.
Certainly, not a sort of 'name calling' that calls me prejudiced because i
characterize a person from their actions (that is, I certainly don't
expect to hear "this is ad hominem so your allegations are not true").
The fact that the person is biased and produces biased ideas cannot be
dismissed just because someone decided to express this verbally.
If i feel someone is biased, then the refutation of this cannot be "this
is ad hominem", but other arguments that prove that the person is not
biased.
Maria_Stella
> Comments Below.
>
> --- john foster <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > At 05:23 PM 7/14/00 +0100, Maria Stella wrote:
> > >Question (sorry to interrupt):
> > >
> > >
> > >> Now there you go John!!!! Now that IS an ad hominem.
> > >
> > >Is the statement above a valid argument, or just name calling?
>
> Maria-Stella,
>
> Here is a link to the ad hominem argument.
>
> http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.htm
>
>
>
> > An ad hominem argument is about the man, or from the man or person. It
> > is
> > used to discredit the argument by referring to something in the person.
>
> Quite correct John, for example calling Ron Bailey an idiot is a perfect
> example. You are trying to discredit his argument with such a simple
> stateement (incidentally for which you provide no support so technically
> it is also an example of petitio principii, a.k.a begging the quesiton).
>
> > For
> > instance people talk about Bill Clinton as not being a good statesman on
> > account of his relationship with Monika Lewdinski. Another example
> > perhaps
> > is Martin Heidegger who was a good philosopher, but was also a member of
> > the
> > Nazi party. Heidegger was investigated by the authorities after WW2 and
> > it
> > was determined that he was a 'fellow traveller' of the Nazi's.
> >
> > He did not participate in any war crimes, but he was found to have
> > implemented and adminstrated the anti-semitic laws of the Nazi's while
> > he
> > was Recktor at the University of Frieburg in Germany. He was relieved of
> > his
> > professorship for awhile after he was determined to have been a fellow
>
> Wrong, John, he was punished not for sharing the Nazi philosophy, but for
> enforcing such abominable laws (assuming your account above is true).
> Thinking something evil is not the same as doind something evil. I should
> know as I am the Prime Evil-Doer on this list (if I may be permitted a bit
> of engaging some argument from authority).
>
> [big snip]
>
>
> > > That in general, an argument is
> > >not valid because it is "ad hominem"? So what? I am asking because I
> > see
> > >this used often in the list if there are no other arguments to hand.
> > >
> > >Maria-Stella
> >
> > Ad hominem type arguments like the ones on this list are ones used to
> > intimidate people interested in the ethics of Leopold which say that
> > Leopold
> > cannot know what he saying because he cannot establish certainty
> > regarding
> > his beliefs which are said to be on the surface 'undemocratic' and
> > therefore
> > fascist. This means for instance that the arguement is not of interest
>
> Ooops, fallacy of the excluded middle here I do believe. John, being
> undemocratic does not necessarily make one a fascist.
>
> Second, are you implying that the investigation into whether or not
> Leopold's ethics are fascist, communist or some other form is 'ist' or
> 'ism' is not valid? Should we just sit back and say, well Leopold cares
> about the environment therefore whatever he says must be good and
> virtuous? Then why even discuss him at all?
>
>
> > to
> > the discussion but something else which may be the intolerance,
> > foolishness,
> > immorality of the thinker. In Leopold's case his writings are used in
> > almost
> > all natural resources education programs as examples of a conservation
> > ethic. The claim that Leopold is intolerant of democracies has not basis
> > in
> > fact since Leopold and his ideas have never resulted in any events
> > remotely
> > associated with intolerance and so on.
> >
> > Jim' arguement was that because of the perception that ecosystem
> > resilience
> > and stability are not qualities, that they should not be used as ethical
>
> And here is an strawman argument, if I am not mistaken. I believe that
> Jim's original assertion was that such concepts (resilience and stability)
> were not measurable.
>
>
> > foundations. In contrast I and other have stated that ecosystems are
> > concepts, therefore they required some special training to comprehend as
> > well as to apprehend (apprenshive knowledge is more intuitive perhaps).
> > The
> > measures of integrity and resilience are not anthropomorphic ideas at
> > all,
> > but are found in the qualities which are intrinsic to actual ecosystems.
>
> But John, if we cannot say how the eye detects the color green how can any
> of your senses detect the resilience of an ecosytem?
>
>
> > The
> > only qualification therefore is that the term health for instance is
> > used as
> > a metaphor for some pre-specified notion of condition, such as
> > biological
> > diversity and abundance, or productivity (moisture retention for
> > instance in
> > soils) much like a normal pulse in a person is analogous to wellbeing.
> > Resilience and integrity are not qualties that is true but neither are
> > many
> > notions that we live and perish with.
>
> Now I am lost. How does Jim's questioning the notions of resilience and
> stability imply Jim is saying Leopold is a fascist?
>
>
>
> > The example from Nietzsche that I quoted refers to the naive
> > philosophies
> > that regare the attendant and secondary phenomenon as 'values' as pretty
> > silly in ethics, don't you think? for instance pain and pleasure are so
> > unspecified responses to so many qualities that it is impossible to even
> > make any solid inferences about the role of pain and pleasure with
> > respect
> > to ecosystems.
> >
> > When the argument against intrinsic value is couched this way, then we
> > see
> > the arguement through intimidation surfacing. Which means that the
> > person is
> > intimidated into believing that any other valid intellectual or
> > scientific
> > claims for valuation are nuetered on the palate. Simple sense data means
> > nothing;
>
> Then don't the concepts of resilience and stability mean nothing as well.
> How do you measure them if not by observing them (assuming they can be
> observed)? So when you are driving down the road and your sensory organs
> tell you a deer is in the road you keep right on driving because that data
> means nothing?
>
>
> > it is only data and does not even supply any information about
> > the
> > object in any way.
>
> Oooookay. So we can just chuck all of science right out the window. I
> bet this is gonna make alot of 9th graders happy that they don't have to
> much around in the guts of a frog anymore. Afterall, anything that their
> sensory organs picked up would just be sense data which is meaningless and
> contains no information.
>
> Steve
>
> =====
> "In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a
> 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
> --Jamey Lee West
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere!
> http://mail.yahoo.com/
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
