First an example of personal abuse:
**** 1. X is evil 2. John affirms X 3. Therefore John is a prick. *****
Now, statement 3 is rude and probably won't help the discussion. Not a good idea. BUT, shag says, it won't poison the wells of discourse, because it does not prejudge any respnse John makes. John can reply, quite straightforwardly, in two different ways.
(a) John can argue that X is not evil. So the argument can proceed in ordinary ways. (b) John can agree that X is evil but point out that he does not in fact agree with X.
The discourse may still get pretty rough, but it has not been seriously frustrated.
Now consider the ad himinem argument, and it will be best to give several examples.
****** 1. John is illiterate. 2. John affirms X 3. Therefore X is evil. ******
***** John is a wonderful person. John affirms X Therefore X is true. *****
The topic of the discourse is X: one 'side' is arguing for X, the otherside against X. But both examples of ad hominem argument CONCEAL X and make it extremely difficult to ever get back to X. They have poisoned the wells of discourse. The topic now becomes the personality of John, not the truth or falsity of X.
Some really lousy pricks out there in the world promote some very good ideas. Some really inteeligent and wonderful persons out there in the world profess really ugly and false ideas.The truth of a proposition is not determined by the character of those who profess it.
So to summarize.
Michael is correct; we should try to be less rude. We should also make some effort not to merely exchange insults. But those insults happen; they are static but not poison. But an ad homnem argument is more than static, it is poison, and not only in the ways mentioned above but in a further way: When someone uses an ad hominem argument, it becomes difficult to believe in the good faith of that person. Now the wells are really poisoned.
Carrol
On 10/31/2011 8:05 AM, SA wrote:
> On 10/31/2011 6:29 AM, shag carpet bomb wrote:
>
>> Yeah. I agree. One thing Carrol has said, and I think it's very true.
>> When we have a discussio, calling each other names is not that big a
>> deal. Using ad hominem and logical fallacy, however, is something you
>> use on your enemy. When people elect to use logical fallacy here, I at
>> first assume it's a mistake. When that becomes their main line of
>> argument, then I assume that they are not interested in solidarity. I
>> assume that those who prefer to use it in arguments have decided that
>> they see members of this list as the enemy.
>
> I don't get this at all. It's fine to call people names, but not to
> point out their (perceived) logical fallacies? These norms of argument
> are unfamiliar to me. I'm trying to figure out what the ideal mode of
> discussion would be in your view. It seems like it would be an ongoing
> workshop in which everyone collaboratively helps each other refine their
> ideas. That does happen here sometimes, and it's nice when it does. But
> it can only happen when people are already in fundamental agreement on
> some point.
>
> But what about when people just fundamentally disagree? Normally that
> would mean demonstrating why one thinks the other person is wrong,
> showing errors of fact or argumentation (i.e. logical fallacies) -- you
> know, argument. It sounds like you're saying that that in itself is a
> breach of "solidarity" - a sign that the other person is viewed as an
> "enemy." Well, no, it's not. It's just debate. Can't you think the other
> person is completely wrong on some point without seeing them as an
> enemy? It's strange to think that if person A pointed out person B's
> logical fallacy, and B responded by calling A a nasty name, you would
> see A as being in the wrong and B as being in the right. No wonder
> there's so much misunderstanding on this list.
>
> SA
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk