NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/talk/abortion/46789

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-06 | 18.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!uw-beaver!news.tek.com!shaman!pogo!daveb
From: [e-mail] (Dave Butler)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Logic vs. Rhetoric (was: J'ACCUSE JOAN CAMPBELL (and dozens of others)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:30:50 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.
Lines: 323

Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.
Keywords:

This is wonderful, I haven't seen this much hubris combined with fallacy from
an opponent since my arguments with Mr Rasmussen (not that anyone could really
match Mr Rasmussen).  First, before replying to Mr Darcy's accusations which
actually have something to do with the present discussion, I would like to
reply to his concern about Ms Regard.  You see, I explained why I actually
replied to an article posted solely in t.a, and Mr Darcy got incensed at my
explanation as to why his article would usually be safe from reply, and
answered back:

> Note also that his cheerleader, Adrienne Regard, also replied to his article
> exclusively to talk.abortion, and yet we don't hear Dave blathering about
> "safety" in her case.

Mr Darcy, this is a rather silly accusation as I do not normally read t.a
(and in fact, aside from this one thread, I am still not reading t.a).  And as
I wasn't even aware of Ms Regard's "cheerleading" until I saw it at the end of
your own article, it's silly for you to chastise me for not responding to it.
You seem to be "blathering" rather severly, in your attempt to impute
something between Ms Regard and I, but if it makes you feel better Mr Darcy, I
will gladly note to Ms Regard that, as far as I am concerned, it is quite safe
to compliment me in talk.abortion where I will not see that compliment.  Now
that we have that out of the way, perhaps we can get back to the discussion.

Now Mr Darcy presents two actual arguments in this new article; unfortunately
for him, neither are valid as they are not supported by the facts.  His first
argument is that Mr Nyikos did not use non sequitur in his evidence against
those clergymen:

> You have not yet demonstrated that Nyikos claimed that these people were
> "representative", or that they were even members, of liberal christianity.
> Therefore your claims of overgeneralization (known in your world as
> "converse secundum quid" <snicker>) and of non-sequitur are themselves
> straw man attacks.

Mr Darcy you are quite wrong (not to mention confused), Mr Nyikos did indeed do
as I stated.  In fact in rereading Mr Nyikos' article I can see that his
accusation is even more severe than I had remembered.  Mr Nyikos did not
merely indict Liberal Christianity, he explicitly bases his accusations
against these clergymen on an indictment against 20th century Protestantism in
general:

> I base these first three accusations on the history of
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Protestantism over most of our century.  In the 1960's Bishop J.A.T.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Robinson came out with a book, _Honest to God_ which created
> quite a stir in our churches because it laid out in language understan-
> dable to laymen the reigning orthodoxy (mis-named "liberal Protestantism"
> for the most part, although it also encompassed the "neo-orthodoxy" of Karl
> Barth and other schools) in the higher echelons of most denominations.
> The average churchgoer up to that time had no inkling of how atheistic
> (yes, atheistic!) Union Theological Seminary and other institutions in
> the constant eye of the media had become.

In fact Mr Nyikos explicitly stated his agenda, in stating how he will show
that:

> ...they [the clergymen he accused]  also do not see how very
> far they are from the Christianity of the Apostolic period.

But Mr Nyikos only gives anecdotal evidence of a very radical Protestant, and
then tells of a few books written by radical Protestants (one example is
actually contained in the above paragraph), as proof of the this corruption of
Protestantism.  Interestingly though, there is nothing in Mr Nyiko's article
that show that the accused clergymen were also radical Protestants, supported
the views Mr Nyikos presented, or for that matter, any evidence that the
clergymen he accused, were even Protestant (I have the article in question and
would be more than willing to reprint it).  Since Mr Nyikos has not produced a
logical link, he is using non-sequitur.  Now Mr Darcy, you can insist a that
this is not non sequitur all you wish, but such claims ring rather hollow when
confronted with the facts of the matter.  So if you are going to be so
dishonest to repeat the claim, then document the assertion that Mr Nyikos ever
showed the religion of the clergymen against which he made accusations.

As to your attempted refutation of "appeal to awe":

>> You ask how I would reply? I would, if possible, show the logic
>> and reasoning which proves the arguments were valid, and show that my facts
>> were correct.
>
> I asked how you would reply specifically to an attack on your credentials.
> You have chosen to answer a different question. I find this kind of rhetorical
> trick reprehensible. Please answer the question I asked, or admit your have
> no answer to give.

Actually you asked the question in the context what was done to Mr Nyikos.
In that particular case Mr Nyikos has bragged about how competent a debater
he is, and Mr Margolis replied back that Mr Nyikos had shown no skill in
debate at all:

>> I can run circles around most people when it comes to
>> science and philosophy.
>
> You've certainly shown no sign of it; in fact, you've shown yourself
> to be rather ignorant of logic and set theory.

Mr Nyikos' reply to the accusation that he had shown no competence, was to list
his credentials.  That is not a valid defense to his claim that he "can run
circles around most people when it comes to science and philosophy," nor is it
a valid rebuttal to the claims that he has "shown no sign of it" (especially
in context of his use of fallacies).  Now, in his place I would have challenged
Mr Margolis for an example and thereby dealt with those accusations if that
were possible, but presenting my degrees would not answer the challenge that I
had "shown" no competence.  By listing his degrees Mr Nyikos has shown that he
has no excuse for incompetence, but not shown that his previous arguments were
competent.  Now Mr Darcy, if you don't like my answer, as it doesn't prove
your accusation, that is unfortunate for you, but do not be so fatuous and
dishonest as to proclaim that I haven't answered your question, simply because
you don't like the answer.

Oh, by the way Mr Darcy, you ignorance of the fallacy of ad hominem is again
shown by your accusations of ad hominem against Mr Margolis; your accusations
fall quite flat.  Since Mr Nyikos specifically made himself and his competence
the issue by his bragging, then it is not ad hominem to reply to his claims
thereby question his competence.  For another example, in an argument about
seatbelts, it would ad hominem to attack me as "sinful," instead of my
attacking my arguments.  On the other hand, if I was to claim that I am a
"true saint," then it would be quite appropriation to point out any "sins"
as, at that point, my "sinfulness" would *be* the issue.  Since Mr Nyikos
himself made his ability to "run rings around most people" an issue, then it
is quite appropriate to attack that claimed competence.

Now there is this passion of yours to convict me of ignorance of logic.
First, you make a false claim about secundum quid:

> _Secundum quid_ can only be committed by the challenger
> of an assertion, whereas overgeneralization is made within an assertion
> itself.

Then you dismiss my argument of converse Secundum, by attacking me personally:

> I think you just picked "secundum quid" at random from some rhetoric or
> logic textbook or another, and tacked "converse" onto it for effect. Either
> that, or you got the term intact from some textbook having nothing to do with
> rhetoric or logic.

This is most interesting.  I present precise terminology, and even give an
explicit reference, and instead of actually looking in said reference, or even
presenting a reference of your own, you simply declare, apparently by your own
authority as you have presented no reference, that my arguments are worthless
as I just picked them out those arguments "at random." That dear child is pure
ad hominem; you are explicitly attacking me rather than attacking my
arguments.  Realizing though that you seem to be too lazy to look it up
yourself I figured that I would quote the Encyclopedia Britannica for you:

    The classification which is still widely used is that of Aristotle's
    "Sophistical Refutations": (1) The fallacy of accident is committed by
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    an argument that applies a general rule to a particular case, in which
    some special circumstance ("accident") makes the rule inapplicable.
    The truth that "men are capable of seeing" is no basis for the conclusion
    that "blind men are capable of seeing."  This is a special case of the
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    the fallacy secundum quid (more fully: a dicto simpliciter secundum quid
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    which means  "from a saying [taken] too simply to a saying according to
    what [it really is]"; i.e., according to its truth as holding only under
    certain provisos).  This fallacy is committed when a general position is
    used as a premise for an argument without attention to the (tacit)
    restrictions and qualifications that govern it and invalidate its
    application in the manner at issue. (2) The converse form of accident
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    argues improperly from a special case to a general rule.  The fact that
    certain drug is beneficial to some sick persons does not imply that it
    is beneficial to all men.
                Encyclopedia Britannica
                Section on Material fallacies in
                the Topic of Logic.

See Mr Darcy, you could have simply looked at my reference to see that I had
not picked it "at random," rather that making false, slanderous and ad hominem
accusations against me.  I realize though that research would have taken more
actual work on your part, than just making up accusations with which to malign
me, and so I should not expect any from you.

I also find it interesting how you used your false accusation of "random
pick", to malign me as using "appeal to awe" and not having "DECENCY":

>> Your accusation implicitly states that my credibility and the verity of my
>> arguments are dependent on my credentials,
>
> Nope. Not at all. My accusation implicitly states that by tossing out all
> sorts of philosophical jargon, you yourself seemed at least as guilty of
> _argumentum ad vericundium_ as Nyikos was (who, after all, claimed no
> expertise in matters of rhetoric). This appearance, if true, would ultimately
> lead to a charge of hypocrisy.
>
>> and that if I do not have any credentials, then my arguments are invalid;
>
> Wrong again. If you are referring to the "at least Nyikos had the decency to
> list his..." phrase, this clearly implies that if you are going to engage
> in _argumentum ad vericundium_, you should at least have the DECENCY to list
> the credentials upon which your arguments rely, instead of just tossing out
> random (and questionable) jargon, thereby subtly insinuating that such
> credentials do exist. My phrase was an attack on your METHODS, not the
> SUBSTANCE of your arguments, and was integrally connected to the previous
> sentence, which questioned whether you were in fact engaging in your own
> _argumentum ad vericundium_. They were both part of the same hypothetical.

Let's see now Mr Darcy, you assert that, if I specify precise terminology, and
even give explicit references, so that people can verify the terms I am using
(and thereby verify my arguments), then I am using _argumentum ad
vericundium_, because some people, such as your self, are too lazy, stupid or
etc, to actually do any work in verifying my assertions, even when given that
explicit reference.  Such people can thereby wallow in their ignorance and
claim that, because they are ignorant, I must be misusing rhetoric to impress
them, and thus I must be using "appeal to awe." You further proclaim that
since I am using terminology and thereby using "appeal to awe," that I have
a duty to  do that fallacy right, and give my credentials as well.  Since you
claim to be convinced by such ad hominem and garbagy arguments I can only be
amused at your blatant, self-righteous incompetence.

As to your invitation to commit a fallacy:

>>Your accusation is also an
>>explicit invitation for me to produce my credentials and thus participate in
>>"argumentum ad vericundium" (ie: claiming my arguments are valid because I
>>have some credentials).
>
> Assuming, for the sake of argument, that I WAS in fact "inviting" you to
> commit a fallacy, is it your assertion that such an invitation is in itself
> a fallacy? Does this new fallacy have a name? In common parlance, it would
> be called "baiting", but I disagree that baiting is a fallacy.

No no, Mr Darcy, requesting someone to commit a fallacy is not in itself a
fallacy.  But assuming that the request is sincere, it does mean that the
person is easily swayed by that fallacy.  But I guess you didn't like the
conclusion that, if you were sincere, then you were also incompetent.  So now
you claim that you *may* not have been making an honest request, and were just
laying a trap for me (you sly dog you).  You claim you may just have been
setting a real "crafty" trap to trick me into using a fallacy myself.  How
cunning you must feel if it is true, and How good it is that I am a clear
thinker and was thereby was able to avoid your "devious" trap.  How lucky I am
that I do not have trick you into writing all the fallacies and poor reasoning
you have been producing.  Of course perhaps you are lying.  Perhaps you simply
don't want to look like a complete idiot for your belief that that my
arguments are dependent on my credential.  In fact there is some evidence for
that in the very same article where you claim that your invitation might have
been a trap for me.  In that article you still foolishly (and this time
explicitly) argue that my arguments somehow still rely on my credentials:

> Wrong again. If you are referring to the "at least Nyikos had the decency to
> list his..." phrase, this clearly implies that if you are going to engage
> in _argumentum ad vericundium_, you should at least have the DECENCY to list
> the credentials upon which your arguments rely...
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is clearly one of the most inane arguments I've ever seen.  You proclaim
that you are inviting me to commit a fallacy, and also repeat your accusation
that I have no "DECENCY" if I do not commit that fallacy, claiming that my
arguments rely on my credentials.  Thus Mr Darcy, I think that you are talking
out of both sides of your mouth.  You don't want to admit to being swayed by a
particular fallacy, but you still want to use that fallacy against me.  As to
your supposed trap for me, even if it was true, then you thus admit that
you are demanding that I have the "DECENCY" to fall for your trap? That is
reminiscent of a child who throws a tantrum because a person won't allow that
child to hit him.

As to your misuses of rhetoric, in claiming that I my accusations against
you (ie: that arguments were poorly researched and poorly reasoned) were
unsubstantiated and red herring, that is rather pathetic.  I presented exact
references showing exactly why your arguments were so impotent, and since your
pathetic arguments were used to attack me, a rebuttal to your arguments is
extremely appropriate.  I'm truly sorry for you, that you consider a valid
summary of a rebuttal to be "red herring".

And concerning your final accusation of ad hominem:

>> Thus, after reading this this one article of
>> yours, I cannot say that you score any marks in credibility either.
>
> Ad hominem + fallacy of slanting.

It really is pathetic when someone who is so adamant about making accusation
of ad hominem, has so little concept of what the ad hominem actually is.  I
said that it was your *arguments* which affected your *credibility*, not the
other way around.  For example, claiming that a particular person to be a
liar, and thereby everything he says must be a lie, is an ad hominem attack,
but showing that a person is lying about the issue in question, and thereby
conclude that he is a liar, is not an ad hominem attack.  Thus for me to
conclude that the garbage and dreck you write reflects badly upon your
credibility, is neither Ad hominem or slanting (unless of course I were to use
that conclusion to dismiss the everything else you say as being false, and I
do not do that).  In other words Mr Darcy, you presently seem to be clueless
in this discussion, it would behoove you to beg, borrow or steal one as soon
as possible.

                Later,

                Dave Butler

    Remember: Silly is a state of Mind, Stupid is a way of Life.

    PS. I do not want you to think that my accusation of "inflammatory"
    is an indictment against your credibility, rather I was noting it as
    the reason for my being coarse and cutting in return.  I try respond
    in the same tone as the people who disagree with me.  If someone corrects
    me politely I try to respond in like tone.  On the other hand, when
    someone stridently accuses me of dishonesty, and acts like an
    ill-tempered puppy who shits all over the rug, I tend to slap him around
    with facts, and rub his nose in his mess.

    PPS  Mr Darcy, while I could personally care less about your credentials,
    I do find it amusing that, while you scream that "arguments rely" on
    "credentials," you have never published yours.  Now I want to repeat, that
    I could care less what those credential are, but I do note that it is
    hypocritical of you to rant and scream that I have no "DECENCY" because I
    have not produced mine, when you have had ample time to produce yours and
    have not (especially as you produced no references to support your
    assertions).  Now usually hypocrisy is the result of either incompetence
    or dishonesty, so I am curious whether there is another reason for your
    hypocrisy, or whether I should just chalk it up to one of the
    aforementioned reasons.

    By the way Mr Darcy, in your next article don't bother producing your
    credentials (or go ahead and do so if you want to use "argumentum ad
    vericundium"), but do produce a standard reference so we can see where you
    are getting your "facts."  If you haven't noticed by now, I invariably
    have a reference or exact quotation for anything I assert; it saves
    a great deal of embarrassment.