From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sun Mar 30 2003 - 10:09:43 MST
I can't believe that some Extropians still argue *for* the use of ad
hominem. Ad hominem is one of the most common logical fallacies, and one of
the least understood. As a logical fallacy, it is not just a rule about
politeness. It is a logic error that can be proven to be false. Anybody
arguing for ad hominem is arguing for false evidence and faulty logic, or
doesn't know what ad hominem means.
Ad hominem means "against the man" rather than against the argument. It
claims that a person is 100% erroneous and can never make a correct
statement ever. Simply by recognizing the person as 100% erroneous, we
don't have to refute their statement because it is "known" in advance to be
wrong. This is not acceptable "proof" or "debate" under any definition of
these words.
There are five types of ad hominem. I don't think any Extropians would
argue for any of these:
1. Abusive ad hominem is just an insult. Example: "You are a idiot, case
closed."
2. Tu Quoque ad hominem (meaning "you too") is using two wrongs to make a
right. Example: "Don't blame me for misquoting sources because you have
misquoted sources too!"
3. Circumstantial ad hominem attacks the circumstances around other
believers. Example: "Suicide bombers think they're right too, so you must
be a terrorist."
4. Genetic ad hominem attacks the source of a belief. Example:
"Widespread healthcare originally derives from socialism."
5. Poisoning the well is a pre-emptive attack before the argument is made.
Example: "Don't trot out your tired old position again, like I know you
will, because it never convinces anybody."
That's it. That's ad hominem. Does anybody really want to argue that these
are valid techniques for Extropians trying to determine the truth?
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 30 2003 - 10:17:32 MST