Hi again everyone,
Since neither John nor either one of his two evil twins have checked in yet
with us today <grin>, let me just go back to my original remarks on the
topic of "ad hominem" and say a few things more. I appreciate John
Foster's helping us to "sharpen the terms of the debate," as they say. :-)
>At 08:59 PM 7/18/00 -0500, Jim Tantillo wrote:
>>>Jim Tantillo wrote:
>>>>Let me just preface this by saying "Budiansky is a jerk."
>>>>
>>>>Let me quickly add that if that were all my comments, then that statement
>>>>would constitute an ad hominem of the depreciatory variety (presumably one
>>>>of the "Heinz 57"). If instead, I were to say simply, "Budiansky is a
>>>>saint," and *nothing* more, then that would also constitute an ad hominem,
>>>>albeit of the appreciatory variety (again, one of "57").
>>>
An "ad hominem" does not necessarily always have to be an "ad hominem
*argument*." In my original email, I could just as easily have said,
"Budiansky is a carpenter." In that case, the statement would *still*
constitute an ad hominem, albeit a trivial (perhaps) and relatively
uninteresting ad hominem. But since ad hominem means literally: "to the
man," the statement that "Budiansky is a carpenter" (or that Budiansky is a
"whatever") still constitutes an ad hominem.
Now, ad hominem *ARGUMENTS*, on the other hand, are normally thought of as
those arguments in which the (ad hominem) information *about* a person is
used to discredit that person's ideas. We might, for instance, imagine a
situation where an ad hominem statement like "Budiansky is a carpenter"
might in fact actually be used to make an ad hominem argument.
For example, let's say a guy named Stephen Buttinsky is a house framer who
happens to share a job site with a bunch of arguing stone masons. The
stone masons are constantly arguing day in and day out about the best way
to mix cement, or the best way to lay cinder block, or the best way to
build a chimney. (Let's call them, "masonry realists.") One day,
Buttinsky is so tired of listening to the masons' seemingly endless
bickering about foundationalism that he goes over to offer some friendly
advice about pouring a concrete slab. In response to Buttinsky's meddling,
however, one of the more disagreeable and vociferous stone masons says:
"Don't listen to Buttinsky. Buttinsky is a carpenter."
:-)
So similarly, if someone were to say to us: "Don't listen to Budiansky,"
because "Budiansky is a carpenter," then that might constitute a rather
primitive form of ad hominem argument. In our case, however, i.e. here on
the enviroethics list, **WARNING: OBLIGATORY ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS REFERENCE
COMING UP** we are FAR more likely in this forum to hear such things as,
"Don't listen to Budiansky. Budiansky is an anti-environmentalist"; or
"Don't listen to Budiansky-- he's an anthropocentrist"; or "Don't listen to
Budiansky, because Budiansky is just a mouthpiece for capitalist greed and
corporate propaganda." <grin> You get the idea.
Why, two months ago Ray Lanier even tried ("snidely"?) to suggest that
Budiansky's being a <gasp> JOURNALIST was reason for suspicion about the
man's ideas. Yep, that's right . . . can you believe it?? (see
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/enviroethics/2000-05/0139.html ) :-)
So Maria-Stella . . . my advice is: don't listen to all those meddling
Buttinsky's who want to tell you what Budiansky either is or is not as a
person. Read the man's book, then decide for yourself whether his actual
ideas and arguments make sense or not.
Jim T.
p.s. At the risk of leaving myself open for some more sustained and
continued abuse from the logic prig (my fond hopes for "ad hominem argument
closure" notwithstanding <g>), allow me now to self-reference myself once
more, "Humberto"-like !
At 08:59 PM 7/18/00 -0500, Jim Tantillo wrote:
>Okay. enough about the ad hominem fallacy. Perhaps one of the logic prigs
>in the audience will call attention to something I've said here in error.
>:-)
>
p.p.s. :-)
>>>A simple statement by itself is not an arguement.
>>
>>
>>"I think you are wrong." :-)
>
>I think I am right. If in fact Budiansky is a saint, then where is the
>information that would lead to an argument about him?
>
>If all I that I know about him is that he is a jerk, and in fact he is, then
>how can I argue one way or the other. Does not there have to be
>'conflicting' information for an argument?
>
>If all we have is the simple truth, then no argument. :=(
>
>john foster
>"In Arizona I remember soft fluffy clouds catching colors reflected
>everywhere. Long narrow clouds trailing off into the horizons."
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|