Michael
>Using Jim's example, the argument that Buttinsky knows nothing about laying
>cement because Buttinsky is a carpenter, requires a second premise, ie all
>carpenters are ignorant of cement laying. And proving this second premise
>again would be more difficult than simply evaluating the method.
Exactly. You hit the proverbial nail on the head. See my earlier message...
>
>It appears therefore as if attacking the person, while not a totally
>invalid argument, is a more clumsy way of reaching the truth than attacking
>the argument directly.
>
>Michael
In art and literature the us of a syllogism with a missing second term (the
argument) is an art form of great subtle beauty. In my illogical opinion.
Modus operandi...
John
PS
I forgot the name of this types of syllogism. There is a large world wide
international following numbering in the millions, perhaps billions that
belong to the group.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|