From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Date: Mon Mar 31 2003 - 12:00:15 MST
> (Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com>):
> 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.
Sure, there are those who misuse such arguments, but let's not
fall into the fantasy that all arguments can or should be logically
rigorous. It's simply not possible. The conditions and ideas
upon which we are forced to base our actions every day are almost
always unverifiable, vague, ambiguous, and worse. Yet we /must/
make decisions based on them or we would be impotent, waiting for
logical conclusions that will never come.
Real life depends upon heuristics, probabilities, and yes, even
prejudices. Refusal to use them when they're all that's
available is just as irrational as not using rigorous logic when
that is available. "Person X has not historically been a
reliable source of information" is exactly the kind of heuristic
that's useful when you don't have the time or ability for more
rigorous fact-checking. As long as you realize that you're
doing that, and that solid facts should override that if you
come by them, there's nothing at all wrong with it.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 31 2003 - 12:07:28 MST