Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: OT fallacies

Re: OT fallacies

From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 09:04:59 +0200
Message-ID: <44813429$0$31645$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>


Keith H Duggar wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:
>

>>Marshall wrote:
>>
>>>Keith H Duggar wrote:
>>>
>>>>What BB wrote may be called an /insult/ but it is not
>>>>ad hominem since it is not even an argument.
>>
>>>>What BB wrote ... is not even an argument.
>>
>>True. No logic, no fallacy, just ad hominem.
>>
>>>>Ad hominem refers to a fallacious form of
>>>>/argumentation/. BB's argumentation followed that
>>>>insult. The insult was not his argument. Do you
>>>>understand?  You are not alone in this increasingly
>>>>common misconception that insult = ad hominem.
>>>
>>>Exactly.
>>>
>>>Some examples:
>>>
>>>"What you wrote is wrong, therefore you suck." Not
>>>ad-hominem.
>>>
>>>"You suck, therefore what you wrote is wrong."
>>>Ad-hominem.
>>>
>>>"You suck." Not ad-hominem.
>>
>>All three utterances are not by themselves examples of the
>>"ad-hominem" logical fallacy. All of them are ad hominem
>>(=personal) attacks, though.

>
> Unfortunately, mAsterdam, this loose usage of "ad hominem =
> any personal attack" is a relatively recent concoction of
> the ignorant masses. (See for example the discussion at
> http://www.bartleby.com/61/71/A0087100.html). Your equation
> "ad hominem = personal" above also shows that, in this case,
> you share this mass ignorance of what the Latin actually
> means.
>
> We can easily surmise what happened. At some point in recent
> past various members of the ignorant masses heard someone
> use the phrase "ad hominem" to describe a fallacious appeal
> to the emotions of those observing a debate (the correct and
> original meaning). Some among the masses, never having heard
> this "cool" new phrase "ad hominem" before and wanting to
> themselves be "cool", decided to emulate this new behavior.
>
> Having little use for logic and, further still, not
> realizing that emotions impact their ability to reason, yet
> still needing to "understand" the new phrase to "correctly"
> employ it, they assumed that "ad hominem" must, therefore,
> refer simply to insults and personal attacks. Desiring above
> all else to be "cool" and sound impressive, these simpletons
> seized, as soon as they could, any chance to use their new
> "educated" phrase. Thus, they elevated themselves from the
> ranks of the merely ignorant to full-fledged VI (vociferous
> ignoramuses). The rest is history.
>
> Therefore, follow not this modern VI fashion and quibble not
> with those educated in the actual meaning of the phrase.
>
>
>>True, but that does not make it right.

>
>
> And the vociferously ignorant SEVERELY hamper the progress of
> human kind. How to deal with them efficiently is a difficult
> dilemma. And, unfortunately, cyberspace has provided them a
> fertile breeding ground. Do you have an suggestions?
>
>
>>The insults /do/ constitute personal attacks.  They are
>>highly distracting, serve the same purpose as the logical
>>fallacy. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html

>
>
> How do you know the purpose of those insults? I for one
> believe they served a /very/ different purpose having
> little to do with the argumentation here.
>
> -- Keith --
>
Received on Sat Jun 03 2006 - 02:04:59 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US