From: Cory Przybyla (recherchetenet@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Mar 30 2003 - 12:36:29 MST
--- Damien Sullivan <phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 12:09:43PM -0500, Harvey
> Newstrom wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> If someone is a proven liar, and they're asking you
> to take some statement of
> theirs on faith, it seems reasonable to point out
> that they've lied in the
> past and shouldn't be believed without hard hard
> evidence. Vs. someone who'd
> been scrupulously honest in the past. What does
> debate theory say to do in
> this case? Is it ad hominem to point out the past
> lies?
according to:
http://atheism.miningco.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_abusive.htm
3. John has been proven to be a liar numerous times,
so I don't accept John's arguments about abortion.
is ad hominem,
5. John has been proven to be a liar numerous times,
therefore you should reject his testimony and acquit
my client.
is not.
My explanation, although not quite the same as on the
page is: them being a liar has no impact on validity
of arguments which can be determined through debate,
but could cause one to question the facts they bring
into an argument
All five types of ad hominem described here:
http://atheism.miningco.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_adhominem_index.htm
> I could see where the pure logic argument might be
> to take nothing on faith
> from anyone ever, but the world doesn't work so
> cleanly.
>
> -xx- Damien X-)
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 30 2003 - 12:43:35 MST