[Buddha-l] Prominent Neobuddhist proposes religion based blacklisting for government jobs

[andy]

On Saturday 01 August 2009 04:23:07 Alberto Todeschini wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> Thank you for your thoughts.
Alberto, thanks for the response. 
>
> My statement above isn't an argument. Hence, it is a category mistake to
> say that it is an ad hominem. And even if it were an argument, it
> wouldn't be an ad hominem.

Yes, that is the point!  It was meant to be joke, although not as good as 
Richard's. 
>
> Here's how I see it: there is an homogeneous enough view on fallacies
> that it is frequently called something like 'standard treatment/view'.
> Such view has been called into question. I've read many standard
> treatments (including Copi's) as well as several of the recent
> critiques. I've drawn my provisional conclusion: the standard view is in
> many respects problematic and needs correction. OK, I grant you that my
> original 'obsolete' may be too strong. Let's say 'problematic enough to
> require substantial revision'.

Fair enough. 
>
> Once again, I offer to supply references to some of these critiques
> (off-list) so that you don't have to take my word for it.
>
> If there's one thing to learn from the history of science is that there
> are periods during which in a given field the view still held by the
> majority has already been shown to be false by a minority. And so, even
> if it is true (and I'm not sure about this, I have no data) that the
> majority of specialists believe that something like the standard
> treatment is fine, that doesn't mean that it is.
>
Of course, it equally doesn't mean that it isn't!  But isn't it also the case 
that the standard view has standing, and that the minority view has the burden 
of proof? 

> > The ad hominem (and, to correct Joanna's Latin, the ad feminam) is an
> > _informal_ fallacy.
>
> Here is where we disagree. The ad hominem is a type of argument that
> *can* be and indeed frequently is fallacious but is not so intrinsically.
>
> > Thus it is not always a fallacy, but for the most part
> > it is.
>
> First you define it as a fallacy, then you say that it isn't always so.
>
> How about we just don't define it as a fallacy to start with? Let's just
> say that it is a type of argument which is regularly abused. So there
> are fallacious ad hominems and non-fallacious ad hominems.
>
> > What we are dealing with here is not an ad hominem, but a reverse ad
> > verecundiam!

The argumentum ad hominem is the name of a fallacy, so the non-fallacious 
arguement that appears to be an ad hominem is actually not ad hominem at all.  
But here I would be arguing from definition. What makes it a fallacy is the 
lack of relevance of the attack on the person to the matter at hand.  
Sometimes it is relevant, however, and what makes it a fallacy is the 
inability of many people to tell when it is not.  
>
> I'm sure you are right. When there is high traffic on Buddha-L I don't
> read every message carefully. But my point was different. I never said
> anything about the specific case of Curt's message.
>
> Best,
>
> Alberto Todeschini

Well, I don't know if Buddha-l has reached any consensus on Curt's alleged ad 
hominem, and no one has answered my call for a Buddhist evaluation,  so I'll 
just go with what my father used to say to me: "consider the source." 
	When I have time, I  might be interested in looking further into the minority 
view,  but I think the list has probably had enough. 

Yours, 
	Andy
-- 
Ari Fleisher said people should watch what they say.  Obama says people should 
be careful who they listen to.  See the difference?