From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sun Mar 30 2003 - 14:17:22 MST
Damien Sullivan wrote,
> 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.
Yes, this is reasonable. We shouldn't be asked to accept anything on blind
faith without hard evidence in any case.
> Vs. someone who'd been scrupulously honest in the past.
> What does debate theory say to do in this case?
The same rules apply here. We shouldn't be asked to accept anything on
blind faith without hard evidence in any case.
> Is it ad hominem to point out the past lies?
It is not ad hominem to point out the past lies. It is not ad hominem to
decline to believe someone who has lied before. It is ad hominem to claim
that the person is lying now just because they have lied before.
> 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.
Actually, no. Pure logic does not say to take nothing on faith from anyone
ever. Logic says to test these items as a possible working hypothesis.
Logic is a tool for accepting items on blind faith and then determining if
they are true or not. Nothing in logic contradicts the way the world really
works.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 30 2003 - 14:25:08 MST