Personal criticisms and logical fallacies
in [Python]
|
Prev: I've built Python, but can't figure out how to package it forwindows
Next: come and join www.pakdub.com where u can find friends, classifieds, games, music albums, events, blogs, chatrooms, video songs and lot more.... for free
From: Alf P. Steinbach on 9 Feb 2010 19:38 * Ben Finney: > Steven D'Aprano <steve(a)REMOVE-THIS-cybersource.com.au> writes: > >> An ad hominem attack is not when somebody makes a criticism of you >> personally. It is when somebody says something along the lines of >> "Don't pay any attention to Alf, he doesn't know what he's talking >> about, he's a <whatever>". > > In other words, a criticism of the person is only a fallacy if it is > both irrelevant to the argument *and* used to dismiss the argument. Or to weaken an argument, or to draw attention away from an argument, or to weaken future arguments... However, although in this particular case the Ad Hominems constituted logical fallacies, not all Ad Hominems are logical fallacies. For example, if a person is a chronic liar, has a known history of lying, then that can have a strong bearing on whether the person's claims -- technical or about other persons -- should be seriously considered[1]. Cheers & hth., - Alf Notes: [1] As explained at <url: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html>
From: D'Arcy J.M. Cain on 10 Feb 2010 01:51 On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:38:50 +0100 "Alf P. Steinbach" <alfps(a)start.no> wrote: > However, although in this particular case the Ad Hominems constituted logical > fallacies, not all Ad Hominems are logical fallacies. Yes they are. Using the reputation of someone to prove or disprove their claims is a logical fallacy. > For example, if a person is a chronic liar, has a known history of lying, then > that can have a strong bearing on whether the person's claims -- technical or > about other persons -- should be seriously considered[1]. Yes but it's still a fallacy. Taking the author's history into account may be valid for deciding that further investigation is warranted but by itself it does not prove anything about the claims. Suggesting that it does is fallacious. "Bill is a liar therefore his statement is false" is a fallacy. "Bill is a liar so take his claims with a grain of salt" is not. There is another case. "Bill never tells the truth therefore his claim is wrong" is not an ad hominem fallacy. It's a sylogism. It may or may not be correct but if the first statement is true (Bill always lies) then the the conclusion is true. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(a)druid.net> | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
From: Steven Howe on 10 Feb 2010 02:06 Really, is this a relevant topic on a program mail list? You guys need to get a room and start discussing angel counts on pinheads under the blankets. sph On 02/09/2010 10:51 PM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: > On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:38:50 +0100 > "Alf P. Steinbach"<alfps(a)start.no> wrote: > >> However, although in this particular case the Ad Hominems constituted logical >> fallacies, not all Ad Hominems are logical fallacies. >> > Yes they are. Using the reputation of someone to prove or disprove > their claims is a logical fallacy. > > >> For example, if a person is a chronic liar, has a known history of lying, then >> that can have a strong bearing on whether the person's claims -- technical or >> about other persons -- should be seriously considered[1]. >> > Yes but it's still a fallacy. Taking the author's history into account > may be valid for deciding that further investigation is warranted but by > itself it does not prove anything about the claims. Suggesting that it > does is fallacious. > > "Bill is a liar therefore his statement is false" is a fallacy. "Bill > is a liar so take his claims with a grain of salt" is not. > > There is another case. "Bill never tells the truth therefore his > claim is wrong" is not an ad hominem fallacy. It's a sylogism. It may > or may not be correct but if the first statement is true (Bill always > lies) then the the conclusion is true. > >
From: Ben Finney on 10 Feb 2010 02:41 "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy(a)druid.net> writes: > On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:38:50 +0100 > "Alf P. Steinbach" <alfps(a)start.no> wrote: > > However, although in this particular case the Ad Hominems > > constituted logical fallacies, not all Ad Hominems are logical > > fallacies. > > Yes they are. Using the reputation of someone to prove or disprove > their claims is a logical fallacy. The trouble is, the bulk of statements Alf is calling “ad hominem attack” are, if one actually reads them, a criticism of his person. Not intended as a connecting claim in an argument, but a claim *distinct from* the argument Alf is engaged in. So they're *not intended* to prove or disprove the specific claims that immediately precede them. They're intended, at least partly, to provoke self-reflection on the part of the person criticised and, ideally, an improvement in behaviour. Failure to recognise a criticism as such, and instead repeatedly flinging the term “ad hominem” around as though it has any bearing, is an example of behaviour that could easily be improved, if only the person engaging in it would stop. -- \ “You've got to think about big things while you're doing small | `\ things, so that all the small things go in the right | _o__) direction.” —Alvin Toffler | Ben Finney
From: Alf P. Steinbach on 10 Feb 2010 02:53
* Ben Finney: > "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy(a)druid.net> writes: > >> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:38:50 +0100 >> "Alf P. Steinbach" <alfps(a)start.no> wrote: >>> However, although in this particular case the Ad Hominems >>> constituted logical fallacies, not all Ad Hominems are logical >>> fallacies. >> Yes they are. Using the reputation of someone to prove or disprove >> their claims is a logical fallacy. > > The trouble is, the bulk of statements Alf is calling “ad hominem > attack” are, if one actually reads them, a criticism of his person. Not > intended as a connecting claim in an argument, but a claim *distinct > from* the argument Alf is engaged in. That's false. Happily anyone can check back, e.g. up-thread here. Judging by the last few months the number of persons engaging in ad hominem attacks in this group is small, counted on one hand with possibly one finger from the other hand to help. They're very active. But happily, few. However, in the other non-moderated groups I participate in the number of such persons is essentially *zero*, not counting sporadic visits from trolls. > So they're *not intended* to prove or disprove the specific claims that > immediately precede them. They're intended, at least partly, to provoke > self-reflection on the part of the person criticised and, ideally, an > improvement in behaviour. And that's ad hominem, implying unacceptable behavior on my part, which if you could back up you'd cited. > Failure to recognise a criticism as such, and instead repeatedly > flinging the term “ad hominem” around as though it has any bearing, is > an example of behaviour that could easily be improved, if only the > person engaging in it would stop. Cheers & hth., - Alf |