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
>
>
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%