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

[andy]

On Friday 31 July 2009 09:54:58 Richard Hayes wrote:
> On Jul 31, 2009, at 7:06 AM, Alberto Todeschini wrote:
> > Copi's treatment is now obsolete.
>
> Somebody should communicate that to the people who write college
> textbooks on reasoning and critical thinking. In all the texts I have
> used to teach that subject in recent years, argumentum ad hominem is
> still listed among the informal fallacies, with warnings that using it
> weakens one's overall argument.
 
I, for one, find the ad hominem against Copi unconvincing! 
>
> > As for the ad hominem, there are cases in which it is perfectly
> > appropriate
>
> I've never seen any, except for the one's Dan has mentioned, namely,
> that of being an expert witness in a court of law. 

The ad hominem (and, to correct Joanna's Latin, the ad feminam) is an 
_informal_ fallacy.   Thus it is not always a fallacy, but for the most part 
it is.  What we are dealing with here is not an ad hominem, but a reverse ad 
verecundiam!  Those who are better versed in Buddhist logic and epistemology 
than I can point us to the proper pramana, but the best response to an 
argument from authority is to show that the authority is inappropriate, or is 
not an authority in regard to the matter at hand.  Since this is relevant to 
the debate, and is not an ad hominem.  
	Now if the question was whether Harris is a vegetarian, or often wears 
unmatched socks, that would be an ad hominem,  mostly. 
	
(Whether there is a valid appeal to authority is an interesting question. If 
we knew that the judgments of our alleged authority were reliable, we would in 
effect know what they knew, and thus not need to appeal to authority at all.  
Wasn't it the Buddha hisself who said (ipse dixit!) "work it out for 
yourself."）

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