My memory is hazy Maria. I got a copy and had another browse, but am not in
a position to debate it. I would have thought that his thesis is
essentially environmental - and that that makes him concerned for the
environment (and an environmentalist even). Certainly I read it as a
discourse on ecology and environmental history, with oblique criticisms of
those environmentalists who work form different - and false - premises.
Cheers
Chris
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maria Stella [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, 24 July 2000 00:34
> To: Chris Perley
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: The ad hominem argument: hoping for closure :-)
>
>
> I disagree with this. Budiansky did NOT discriminate between
> environmentalists (realists-anti-realists), but only indirectly. The term
> 'environmentalist' is almost appointed the status of name-calling in his
> work.
>
> Maria-Stella
>
>
>
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Chris Perley wrote:
>
> > Budiansky does NOT say that "environmentalists" are bad. There are
> > obviously realist environmentalists, who start with some basic
> ecology and
> > environmental history. It is the ANTIrealist environmentalists that he
> > sometimes has a dig at. You do him a disservice John. Have
> you read the
> > book?
> >
> > Chris Perley
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [log in to unmask]
> > > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of John Foster
> > > Sent: Thursday, 20 July 2000 18:44
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: The ad hominem argument: hoping for closure :-)
> > >
> > >
> > > Jim Tantillo wrote:
> > > >Hi Lisa,
> > > >
> > > >>not to rain on the parade or anything, but
> > > >>actually a little logic 100,
> > > >
> > > >What you write below is true of certain types of arguments, but not
> > > >necessarily of all arguments.
> > >
> > > False. Syllogisms are not 'formal' at all and in fact the
> > > 'syllogismus' is a
> > > greek word that means 'summing up'. So no one needs to know any
> > > formal logic
> > > to 'use an argument'. There is no such thing as a formal
> syllogism, but
> > > formal logic is mathematics, and so the argument you make is
> not correct.
> > >
> > > In logic, the syllogism is studied 'formally' but it is not part
> > > of 'formal
> > > logic' since logic is 'the essence of philosophy' and is logic is only
> > > formal if we are referring to mathematics.
> > >
> > > Logic which studied the 'form' of the syllogism was a lot of
> 'humbug' or
> > > "nothing more than a scholastic collection of technical terms
> and rules of
> > > syllogistic inference. Aristotle had spoken, and it was the part
> > > of humbler
> > > men merely to repeat the lesson after him. The trivial nonsense
> > > embodied in
> > > this tradition is still set in examination and defended by eminent
> > > authorities as an excellent 'propaedeutic', i.e. a training in
> > > those habits
> > > of solemn humbug which are so great a help in later life."
> > >
> > > "Logic as the Essence of Philosophy, Lec. 2, Our Knowledge of
> the External
> > > World as a Field for Scientific Method in Philosophy".
> Betrand Russell.
> > >
> > > What the heck is 'formal logic' anyway? but mathematics!
> > >
> > > Initial Premiss:
> > >
> > > Bu. is a mathematician.
> > >
> > > Bu .. is not a psychologist nor historian.
> > >
> > > So.. why is Bu attempting to compare environmentalists to Hitler?
> > >
> > > Thus. Bu does not have any authority (in fact lacks
> sensitivity regarding
> > > the victims of the holocaust) as a historian, nor as a
> psychologist. He is
> > > entitled to his opinion, that is all.
> > >
> > > Budiansky does not tell us why 'environmentalists' are bad.
> He just says
> > > they are bad. Just like Jim says that there are people who are
> > > bad and some
> > > of them appear to be environmentalists, so environmentalists are bad.
> > >
> > > There is no ad hominem argument here because the first two points
> > > are true.
> > > He may as well be speaking about economists; after all it may
> be that the
> > > Great Economic Depression made it possible to get unemployed people to
> > > believe anything...even kill.
> > >
> > > And finally it was not Hitler that formulated the 'Blud and Soil'
> > > philosophy it was Lena Rufeinstal and the Nazi Minister of
> Culture that
> > > created the soil and blood propaganda that was already entrenched
> > > in German
> > > culture for hundreds of years. The NS simply exploited the
> > > average person's
> > > belief in the 'soil' and in nationalism and there is nothing
> > > 'intrinsically'
> > > 'bad' about that. So Budiansky makes the biggest mistake of all,
> > > because he
> > > is trying to 'sell the emperor some new cloths' which is to argue from
> > > authority, and through intimidation, and no one dares to laugh at the
> > > emperor and his new cloths.
> > >
> > > chao,
> > >
> > > john foster
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|