On Sat, 19 Feb 2005, Michael Dawson wrote:
> Miles, you pedant, why don't you read what I wrote? I said arguments always
> include an analysis of motives. I didn't say that's all they are. And your
> claim that you've ever dealt with an argument without considering the
> background motives is, well, pedantic. BS, dude.
I don't understand your argument. I am responding to your post, and I could care less what your motives are for making the claims you make above. Whether or not your tactful and insightful "BS, dude" is a reasonable assertion depends of the quality of your argument, not the motives that may or may not lie "behind" the statement.
> And P.S.: Analyzing arguers' motives is inside, not outside, the
> Enlightenment. You have a "data" fetish. That's its own form of
> anti-Enlightenment fetish. And it's pretty freakin' weird, coming from a
> psych prof...
I guess we have different conceptions of the Enlightenment. I believe in a culture of evidence (I know that may be strange to some of the oldtimers on the list given the fact I'm not fond of ontological realism, but there it is). If that means I have a data fetish, so be it; all I can say is that it is often useful if people assess claims using evidence and logic rather than dogmatic faith, anecdote, blind fealty to authority, and speculation about the motives of the speaker.
Miles