tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post3084238196155735726..comments2024-03-28T13:39:03.094-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: What is an ad hominem fallacy?Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger79125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72332888793070989792013-05-11T10:00:05.743-07:002013-05-11T10:00:05.743-07:00Test case for an ad hominem;
Can I say Heidegger w...Test case for an ad hominem;<br />Can I say Heidegger was a Nazi - which thus discredits his bizarre philosophical musings?<br />Or can I say that Heidegger was a stone cold scum sucking Nazi - which thus discredits his bizarre philosophical musings?<br />I lean towards option two myself, but am willing to hear other viewpoints on this.<br />thanksBill Honsbergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04836300411894206079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75986136189939656262013-05-01T14:16:45.440-07:002013-05-01T14:16:45.440-07:00Many thanks, Dr.!Many thanks, Dr.!Dictatortotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40566611481613301602013-05-01T13:19:04.165-07:002013-05-01T13:19:04.165-07:00Dictatortot (great name BTW),
Take a look at thes...Dictatortot (great name BTW),<br /><br />Take a look at these pieces:<br /><br />http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/01/trouble-with-conspiracy-theories.html<br /><br />http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2006/09/we-the-sheeple-why-conspiracy-theories-persist.htmlEdward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74867815346712416632013-05-01T12:32:08.687-07:002013-05-01T12:32:08.687-07:00Before everyone drops this tangent, I'm intere...Before everyone drops this tangent, I'm interested about how to treat those ideas that fall under the loose rubric of "conspiracy theories."<br /><br />On the one hand, they don't generally meet Feser's ad-hominem criteria (though some do). At the same time, one strongly senses that engaging most of them past a certain level of seriousness has weirdly corrosive or destabilizing effects on the rational faculties, and that essentially ad hominem dismissals of many such claims can be a necessary act of intellectual hygiene. They seem to beg for a Feseresque response, but I can't fully articulate why.Dictatortotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78233071462047155212013-05-01T11:17:28.917-07:002013-05-01T11:17:28.917-07:00Tony: "But, I didn't say it was "gro...Tony: "But, I didn't say it was "grossly erroneous views" that cause the problem. It is, I think, people who publicly promote heinous views which are so disgusting that virtually all decent people should be able to say "that's morally revolting" without having to parse through a long debate to be (rightly) confident of that truth." <br /><br />And you might well say this for Humean reasons (i.e., lousy ones): you don't believe in the truth as an effective bulwark against evil, so rather than be clear about the truth in the face of evil, we should protect people's natural sensibilities in regard to the 'heinous' (as if this were possible in today's society!).DavidMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32325685319026002292013-04-25T09:36:24.807-07:002013-04-25T09:36:24.807-07:00And,
o ...we say here that evil, in general, is a...And,<br /><br />o ...<i>we say here that evil, in general, is all that is repugnant to right reason.</i> ST I-II q18 a9 ad2Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82958708867855336132013-04-24T15:55:07.075-07:002013-04-24T15:55:07.075-07:00Eduardo: Aren't you a bit old to like Heavy me...Eduardo: <i>Aren't you a bit old to like Heavy metal Daniel XD??</i><br /><br />There's no age limit!<br />Liberteurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17878796551917615050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76176572812220491172013-04-24T10:02:14.401-07:002013-04-24T10:02:14.401-07:00Anonymous: Tyrell, the problem with your analysis ...Anonymous: <i>Tyrell, the problem with your analysis is it implies a general level of rhetorical flair and wit that simply doesn't exist.</i><br /><br />I'm talking about tribe-relative wit, wit as each tribe judges it. The crudest class clown exhibits this kind of "wit", provided that his classmates think that he's witty.<br /><br />Tribes tend to have their own champions and their own notions of "wit". Each tribe showers praise and status on its own champions according to how it judges wit. These champions will often appear pathetically unwitty to other tribes, but, since the champions are mostly motivated by status within their <i>own</i> tribe, they don't care what the other tribes think. In fact, within each tribe, the opposing tribes are usually very low status, so being thought witty by the opposition would actually be a bad thing for one's in-tribe status.<br /><br />In-tribe "wit" may not be <i>real</i> wit. (I'm not being a relativist about wit.) But in-tribe wit is what <i>really</i> motivates the tribe to grant in-tribe status to its champions, and in-tribe status is a major incentive driving the polemics of these champions.<br /><br />My point is that in-tribe status is not a zero-sum limited resource. When two polemicists clash, they aren't fighting over the same limited resource. On the contrary, one is fighting for status within <i>his</i> tribe, while the other is fighting for status within the <i>other</i> tribe. These two kinds of status are not the same. They are not mutually exclusive. It's perfectly possible for both polemicists to get what what they want at the same time, while the public suffers from a poisoned public discourse. That's why the analogy with cops and robbers fails.Tyrrell McAllisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03742116091097551615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73345571722823108402013-04-23T20:38:11.458-07:002013-04-23T20:38:11.458-07:00DNW,
I disagree that gratuitous personal attacks ...DNW,<br /><br />I disagree that gratuitous personal attacks are always a bad look. Looking petulant is bad. Being very aggressive has its bad sides, even for its greatest practioners, and has to be done well, but it can be pulled off in an interesting and entertaining manner. I think especially of Cobbett. Now, when you read Cobbett you can't help but think he sometimes was over the top, but when you read him describe Hume as that great fat fellow and say of archbishop Cranmwer, after referring to him as the Prince of Hypocrites, that his very existence makes you doubt the justice of God, until you realise he was burned amidst the flames that he himself had be response indispensable in lighting, you can't help but take great delight. <br /><br />Tyrell, the problem with your analysis is it implies a general level of rhetorical flair and wit that simply doesn't exist. This flair and wit is essentially non-existent on the anti-traditional, anti-religious side (the best they can do is John Stewart!) and it is, today, even rare enough on the traditional and religious side.<br /><br />Fireworks? There's barely a spark to go around.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13764951261629911712013-04-23T17:48:54.843-07:002013-04-23T17:48:54.843-07:00... Aren't you a bit old to like Heavy metal D...... Aren't you a bit old to like Heavy metal Daniel XD??<br /><br />*At least that is what I remember from your description*Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61474235731180528842013-04-23T17:00:53.548-07:002013-04-23T17:00:53.548-07:00DNW
Considering that the niihilist XD would actua...DNW<br /><br />Considering that the niihilist XD would actually fall prey to his own principles, nothing stops him from just saying: Heyyy these rues only works on you guys ò_Ó!!!<br /><br />AND YES, I have seen people like that, it was very funny talking to him too XD.Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17965996973271871452013-04-23T16:53:49.820-07:002013-04-23T16:53:49.820-07:00BY: What about holocaust deniers or those who defe...BY: <i>What about holocaust deniers or those who defend them?<br />Well?</i><br /><br />I don't even know how to respond to you anymore. I haven't been to Junior High in 40+ years - but today I'm feeling it all over again.Liberteurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17878796551917615050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82369080421276453422013-04-23T16:33:11.271-07:002013-04-23T16:33:11.271-07:00These remarks should not be taken as a direct repl...These remarks should not be taken as a direct reply to McAllister. <br /><br /><br />But looking in, somewhat from the outside, it appears to me that too often conservatives, or realists for that matter (much less Christians), find themselves in the position of being maneuvered by a jeering audience into trying to rescue someone who is, in effect, gleefully determined to die.<br /><br />They are expected by the audience to take an imagined higher road, to prove to the abusive nihilist not only that he is wrong, but to do so in a kindly and gentle manner which sensitive observing spirits will find comforting and reassuring.<br /><br />Now no one appreciates gratuitous or petulant attacks. And a blundering misfired ad hom makes the one delivering it look ridiculous and unserious.<br /><br />But there are many who would quail at shoving the invective knife in even if there were a guarantee that it was logically justifiable and that it would find its mark and stick there quivering.<br /><br />Maybe it's conceived by some as a Christian's duty to simper and glide softly: as a matter of principle.<br /><br />I am sure we have all seen those paintings of a delicate, passive, and scantly bearded Jesus, his mild eyes rolling heavenward as he is stripped or scourged.<br /><br />It seems to have excited, or at the least satisfied the imaginations of a good number of certain kinds of Christians over the years.<br /><br />And, without trying to gratuitously offend, that seems to be emblematic of the strategy the hierarchy of the American Catholic Church has pursued for some decades now. I will leave it to active Catholics to judge the fruits of the program. <br /><br />But frankly, and returning to polemical philosophy, granting some twerpy preening nihilist his premise for the sake of argument, and pinning his head to the wall with logically demonstrable implications seems unobjectionable to me.<br /><br />But then, unlike most here, I wouldn't be interested in, say, saving Richard Dawkin's soul; even assuming he had one: Just in exploring the implications for him personally, in assuming, as he would insist, that he doesn't; and in granting that power and strict inference are all that really matters to the man with intellectual and moral integrity.DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57328546262755449712013-04-23T14:04:11.291-07:002013-04-23T14:04:11.291-07:00Tyrrell,
Total buzzkill.Tyrrell,<br /><br />Total buzzkill.rank sophisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01644531454383207175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1622975246095421562013-04-23T13:54:57.356-07:002013-04-23T13:54:57.356-07:00Edward Feser: Something called “Feser’s tone” is t...Edward Feser: <i>Something called “Feser’s tone” is the subject of occasional handwringing ... Complaining about this is like complaining about police who shoot back at bank robbers.</i><br /><br />There is a very important difference. Police and bank robbers are engaged in a zero-sum game. Polemicists, in contrast, are engaged in a positive-sum game, at the expense of the public.<br /><br />In a shoot-out between cops and robbers, a successful shot by one party equals a loss for the other. In particular, one party's shooting can keep the other from getting off a shot at all. So, if we, the public, want the cops to win, then we want them to shoot back at the robbers.<br /><br />Polemical debate is different. Here, often, the two debaters are playing a <i>positive</i> sum game. They represent different "tribes" (e.g., theists and atheists), so they can <i>both</i> get a status boost from the exchange, within their respective tribes. Unlike gun shots, rhetorical shots from one debater don't hamper the other debater's ability to get off rhetorical shots of his own. On the contrary, the first debater's salvo gives the second debater an opportunity to showcase his own polemical wit.<br /><br />Furthermore, one sides's "winning" (within his own tribe) doesn't exclude the other side's winning (within <i>his</i> own tribe). Each tribe can believe that its champion won. Each debater receives cheers for the witty barbs he aimed at his opponent and sympathy for the unjust calumnies he received.<br /><br />So, unlike cops and robbers, both debaters have an incentive to seek out polemical arguments, because both can "win" at the same time. If they play their cards right, they will both walk away with in-tribe status boosts. In fact, each debater has an incentive to give the other a status boost, because then each can say that he got a higher-status opponent to pay attention to him.<br /><br />The only loser in this positive-sum game is the public. The public has to watch the contending parties devote energy to being witty instead of to being right. The public discourse is filled with polemical fireworks that have little value for finding the truth. Being witty (as judged by one's own tribe) has, at best, only a weak correlation with being right. Otherwise, it wouldn't be so easy for two witty people to disagree, as they often do. Hence, the result of such debates can be expected to have about as much correlation with the truth as would the results of Trial by Combat.<br /><br />In fact, Trial by Combat might be somewhat better than Trial by Rhetorical Wit. At least Trial by Combat is zero-sum, so the participants don't have this perverse and mutually reinforcing incentive to engage in it gratuitously.Tyrrell McAllisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03742116091097551615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86791712093549403702013-04-23T00:45:00.724-07:002013-04-23T00:45:00.724-07:00smug hacks like Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Kraus...<i>smug hacks like Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss</i> - beautifully put!labnuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12216731311329758699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90505759993922890812013-04-22T21:14:32.980-07:002013-04-22T21:14:32.980-07:00I would say the same applies to holocaust deniers ...I would say the same applies to holocaust deniers heavy (i.e. it never happened) or light(only 100,000 people diet the rest inflated by the Zionist propagandists).<br /><br />Revolting is revolting.<br /><br />DS writes:<br />>There you go again. You find some offensive view (NAMBLA, White Supremacy) and label any conspiracy theorist as equivalent.<br /><br />What about holocaust deniers or those who defend them?<br /><br />Well?Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72014572868997572082013-04-22T19:11:10.633-07:002013-04-22T19:11:10.633-07:00So anyone who was to debate, say, Peter Singer or ...<i>So anyone who was to debate, say, Peter Singer or Richard Dawkins or the ghost of David Hume (or anyone holding grossly erroneous views) in public would be causing scandal?? </i> <br /><br />I wasn't aware that Dawkins was promoting NAMBLA's major tenet. Sorry, my bad. <br /><br />But, I didn't say it was "grossly erroneous views" that cause the problem. It is, I think, people who publicly promote <i>heinous</i> views which are so disgusting that virtually all decent people should be able to say "that's morally revolting" without having to parse through a long debate to be (rightly) confident of that truth. In that situation, granting a debate to such a reprehensible character is tantamount to saying "that's a matter that is well worth deeper consideration, because it isn't easy to sort out." Yes, NAMBLA's position <i>is</i> morally revolting, and no, we <i>don't</i> need to publicly discuss it in detail as if the matter were intellectually troublesome. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60751333292415631212013-04-22T13:46:04.761-07:002013-04-22T13:46:04.761-07:00Anonymous,
PC means Personal Computer. A Mac is a...Anonymous,<br /><br /><i>PC means Personal Computer. A Mac is a PC and a windows based system is also a PC. Your argument doesn't make sense when your terminology is incorrect.</i><br /><br /><b>1.</b> <a href="http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/tech-tips-and-tricks/pc-vs-mac-the-big-debate.html" rel="nofollow">Intel</a>: <i>Since PCs and Macs hit the market, the debate has existed over which is best.</i><br /><br /><b>2.</b> <a href="http://www.apple.com/why-mac/" rel="nofollow">Apple</a>: <i>Why get a new PC and just upgrade your computer, when you can get a Mac and upgrade your entire computer experience?</i><br /><br /><b>3.</b> Anonymous: <i>Yes, well... I'm of a more <a href="http://xkcd.com/934/" rel="nofollow">'integralist' bent</a>.</i>Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52978340425450122472013-04-22T06:56:49.814-07:002013-04-22T06:56:49.814-07:00"No sane philosopher should take him seriousl..."No sane philosopher should take him seriously!" - Whom? 'Hoom'? Or 'hyoom'? Kant? Can't? Why not? Get it? Got it? Doubt it.DavidMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17922140606805786222013-04-22T06:49:17.880-07:002013-04-22T06:49:17.880-07:00"I didn't say you shouldn't talk to t..."I didn't say you shouldn't talk to them, or shouldn't put their views down, I say you shouldn't debate them in public." -- So anyone who was to debate, say, Peter Singer or Richard Dawkins or the ghost of David Hume (or anyone holding grossly erroneous views) in public would be causing scandal?? Bullshit, hombre.DavidMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33431250166988165572013-04-22T05:09:20.722-07:002013-04-22T05:09:20.722-07:00PC means Personal Computer. A Mac is a PC and a wi...PC means Personal Computer. A Mac is a PC and a windows based system is also a PC. Your argument doesn't make sense when your terminology is incorrect. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2157939081280483822013-04-21T18:17:37.853-07:002013-04-21T18:17:37.853-07:00PT Geach has a great discussion of this point in h...PT Geach has a great discussion of this point in his little practical logic primer, "Reason and Argument," p26:<br /><br />"This latin term indicates that these arguments are addressed to a particularman- in fact, the other fellow you are diputing with. You start from something he believes and infer a conclusion he won't admit to be true. If you have not been cheating in your reasoning, you will have shown that your opponent's present body of beliefs is inconsistent and it's up to him to modify it somewhere. -This argumentative trick is so unwelcome to the victim that he is likely to regard it as cheating; bad old logic books even speak of the ad hominem fallacy. But an ad hominem argument may be perfectly fair play... Ad hominem arguements are not just a way of winning a dispute: a logically sound ad hominem argument does a service, even if an unwelcome one, to its victim- it shows him that his present position is untenable and must be modified. Of course people often do not like to be disturbed in their comfortable inconsistencies; that is whay ad hominem arguments have a bad name."CJ Wolfenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36653878090090102602013-04-21T04:04:19.993-07:002013-04-21T04:04:19.993-07:00Mr. Green, I've split my sides.Mr. Green, I've split my sides.dover_beachnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7870391695157890422013-04-20T22:31:14.292-07:002013-04-20T22:31:14.292-07:00DavidM: Might as well say that no sane person woul...<i>DavidM: Might as well say that no sane person would take David Hume seriously, <br /><br />I do say that! I say it all the time. In fact, I've been known to stop people at random on the street and say that. Some things just need to be said, and of all such things, that thing to be said is surely one of the most needy.<br /><br /><br />MR. GREEN: No sane person would take David Hume seriously!!!<br />MAN IN THE STREET: What? Take whom seriously?<br />MR. GREEN: No, don't!<br />MAN: Don't what?<br />MR. GREEN: Don't take Hume seriously.<br />MAN: That's what I want to know — whom?<br />MR. GREEN: Yes, Hume!<br />MAN: So will you tell me — whom do you mean??<br />MR. GREEN: Of course.<br />MAN: OK. Then tell me.<br />MR. GREEN: Tell you what?<br />MAN: No, tell me whom!<br />MR. GREEN: Um... [holding my head] I can't!<br />MAN: I. Kant? Oh, man, what a crackpot. No sane philosopher should take him seriously!</i><br /><br />You've clearly put Descartes before D.Rorty (for Dick, sorry, best I could do).E.H. Munrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09038816873823422488noreply@blogger.com