From: J. R. Molloy (jr@shasta.com)
Date: Wed Nov 21 2001 - 07:24:36 MST
From: "Chris Russo" <extropy@russo.org>
> You don't necessarily lose an argument by using an ad hominem. You
> just can't really win an argument with an ad hominem. The rest of
> the argument may well stand on its own.
Sometimes, as in this case, an attack on an opponent's character rather than
by an answer to the contentions made is justified because this particular
opponent can put so much that's wrong into so small a space, and do it in such
a way that it takes ten times (or more) that space to explain carefully just
how wrong it all is. No wonder it's the most favored debating tactic of
ideologues. They do it deliberately to try to impose the greatest burden of
wasted time, energy, and effort on their opponents, meanwhile making their
malicious, emotionally loaded arguments to the ignorant. If one believes there
is a such a thing as neurosis, and if one believes that they can make "idiotic
statements," then such people surely are neurotic, if not quite "blithering
idiots."
--- --- --- --- ---
Useless hypotheses, etc.:
consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind, free will, qualia,
analog computing, cultural relativism, GAC, Cyc, Eliza, cryonics, individual
uniqueness, ego, human values, scientific relinquishment, malevolent AI,
non-sensory experience
We move into a better future in proportion as science displaces superstition.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:04 MST