From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Mon Mar 31 2003 - 03:27:41 MST
Anders writes
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 12:09:43PM -0500, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> >
> > 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?
>
> While they are bad for truth, they are great for "winning" debates.
That depends on the audience. I think that few on
the Extropian list perceive that any harm has been
done to one's position because someone else resorted
to ad hominem attack.
> Unfortunately many think that it is better to win the debate
> (since one is always right) than get to the truth, which in
> the long run backfires. Not only does one end up with enemies,
> all possibility of reaching a shared understanding of the true
> state of things have vanished in the mists of polarisation.
Well, I grudgingly concede that smear tactics in elections
work, and probably it also follows that when millions of
ordinary people are watching debates, ad hominem is effective.
(If that makes me an elitist, so be it.)
> A good argument is a good argument, even if it is the
> devil himself that makes it.
Yes, that's true, provided that a "good argument" is still
a good argument when seen in the absolute total context of
everything that is known.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 31 2003 - 03:27:57 MST