From: ABlainey@aol.com
Date: Sun Mar 30 2003 - 15:54:35 MST
In a message dated 30/03/03 18:07:32 GMT Standard Time,
phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu writes:
> 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?
>
I don't think it is ad hominem to point out any past lies. I also don't see
that the past lies or scrupulous honesty 'should' have bearing in either
case. At the end of the day you have no idea whether the information you have
been given is either true or false. So really all you have is data. It falls
down to you to either collect the evidence yourself or ask the person to
prove it.
It could be that the honest person is really just a great liar and has never
been caught out.
> 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-)
>
This is the crunch point. How much proof do you really need? In a pure logic
argument, you cannot except anything on faith, but in real life, or even
within the limited confines of this list, there are something you do except
on faith.
Alex
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 30 2003 - 16:00:42 MST