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

[jkirk]

(and, to correct Joanna's Latin, the ad feminam

it was a typo.........hehe
Joanna
============== 

-----Original Message-----
From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com
[mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of andy
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 4:02 PM
To: Buddhist discussion forum
Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Prominent Neobuddhist proposes religion
based blacklisting for government jobs

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?

_______________________________________________
buddha-l mailing list
buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l