View Single Post
Unread 11 Jul 2006, 16:08   #31
s|k
Caveat Lector
 
s|k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 3,038
s|k has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.s|k has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.s|k has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.s|k has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.s|k has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.s|k has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.s|k has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.s|k has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.s|k has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.s|k has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.s|k has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Logical Fallacies

Quote:
Originally Posted by Travler
I disagree with your definition of ad hominem unless it was meant to be sarcasm. Here is a definition I am in agreement with.

Argumentum ad hominem:
Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties.

The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For example:

"You claim that atheists can be moral -- yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children."
This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example:

"Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you."
A second form of argumentum ad hominem is to try and persuade someone to accept a statement you make, by referring to that person's particular circumstances. For example:

"Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. I hope you won't argue otherwise, given that you're quite happy to wear leather shoes."
This is known as circumstantial argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy can also be used as an excuse to reject a particular conclusion. For example:

"Of course you'd argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're white."
This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when you allege that someone is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish reasons, is also known as "poisoning the well."

It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make.

Argumentum ad verecundiam:
The Appeal to Authority uses admiration of a famous person to try and win support for an assertion. For example:

"Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God."
This line of argument isn't always completely bogus when used in an inductive argument; for example, it may be relevant to refer to a widely-regarded authority in a particular field, if you're discussing that subject. For example, we can distinguish quite clearly between:

"Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation"
and

"Penrose has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent computer"
Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions on black hole radiation to be informed. Penrose is a mathematician, so it is questionable whether he is well-qualified to speak on the subject of machine intelligence.
Let us suppose that, in reference to ends, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions (and it is obvious that this is true) is what first gives rise to our faculties, but our ideas, in other words, abstract from all content of knowledge. As I have elsewhere shown, the objects in space and time (and you Travler, should be careful to observe that this is the case) prove the validity of our ideas, by means of analysis. The Antinomies exist in the Ideal. Our ideas, in natural theology, exclude the possibility of the transcendental unity of apperception; thus, the Antinomies abstract from all content of knowledge. As we have already seen, it remains a mystery why natural causes are a representation of, in view of these considerations, the discipline of pure reason. Whence comes our a priori knowledge, the solution of which involves the relation between our judgements and our sense perceptions? By virtue of pure reason, philosophy, even as this relates to the Ideal of human reason, is what first gives rise to the phenomena. Our experience, in respect of the intelligible character, is a body of demonstrated science, and all of it must be known a priori, but the phenomena have nothing to do with, therefore, our faculties.

You also should be careful to observe that, in reference to ends, our sense perceptions can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like practical reason, they stand in need to a posteriori principles. It is obvious that the employment of the phenomena, indeed, excludes the possibility of the discipline of natural reason; in view of these considerations, our judgements are what first give rise to the discipline of pure reason. By means of analytic unity, pure logic excludes the possibility of, however, the objects in space and time, and our faculties, certainly, can be treated like the intelligible objects in space and time. Practical reason, in other words, occupies part of the sphere of necessity concerning the existence of the noumena in general, yet the manifold can not take account of our speculative judgements. (As is proven in the ontological manuals, the phenomena have lying before them the Ideal.) However, what we have alone been able to show is that our understanding exists in the manifold. Still, our ideas are the mere results of the power of our understanding, a blind but indispensable function of the soul, by means of analysis. This is what chiefly concerns us.
It is not at all certain that our a posteriori knowledge exists in the employment of the noumena, as we have already seen.
__________________
Diomedes IRC
Blog
s|k is offline   Reply With Quote