{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5794", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 5794, "subject": "Urth Digest, Vol 76, Issue 7", "messages": 2, "voices": 1, "first": "2010-12-02T07:20:01+00:00", "last": "2010-12-02T16:16:23+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Nick Lee", "address": "starwaterstrain at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-02T07:20:01+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Urth Digest, Vol 76, Issue 7", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes \nwrote:\nIt is not legitimate. It is a logical fallacy to judge the validity\nof an argument by referring to the motivations of the person who makes\nthe argument." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "An ad hominem is an attack on the character or impartiliaty of the arguer\nrather than his position. In the discussion you're talking about, Wright's\nthesis is attacked on textual grounds. Then the explanation given for\nWright's error is his supposed atheism (though I am not sure how we know\nhe's an atheist).\n\nEven if Wright's thesis were attacked on the basis of his atheism, as it is\nframed in the discussion, this is not an attack on his character. No one is\nsaying there is something wrong with being an atheist. It's not a personal\nattack.\n\nAnd even if this were a personal attack, that would not make it inherently\nfallacious: \"The *argumentum ad hominem* is not always fallacious, for in\nsome instances questions of personal conduct, character, motive, etc., are\nlegitimate and relevant to the issue.\" pg 170. Douglas Walton,* Informal\nLogic: A Practical Approach*.\n\nIt might amuse you to know that Wright is himself a user of reader response\ntheory. The idea of reader response theory is that individual readers bring\ntheir own experiences and motivations to readings and use those to create\ninterpretations. I expect this particular information might shed light on\nthe issue as a whole.\n\nNicholas Goodman" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Nick Lee", "address": "starwaterstrain at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-02T16:16:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Urth Digest, Vol 76, Issue 7", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:20 AM, Nick Lee wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "And even if this were a personal attack, that would not make it inherently\nfallacious: \"The *argumentum ad hominem* is not always >fallacious, for in\nsome instances questions of personal conduct, character, motive, etc., are\nlegitimate and relevant to the issue.\" pg >170. Douglas Walton,* Informal\nLogic: A Practical Approach*." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I really shouldn't have posted at 1 AM. The title of Walton's book is *Informal" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Logic: A Pragmatic Approach*.\n\nI'll also take this opportunity to clarify, as I think I might have been\nunclear on one point. Dan'l Danehy-Oakes seems to think others in this\nthread are guilty of* ad hominem circumstantial* rather than *ad hominem\nabuse*. I didn't explain the difference before. I'll direct you to Wikipedia\nas you probably don't have a copy of Walton lying around.\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem\n\nThis fallacy is not present in previous discussions because this reasoning\nis not being used to attack the validity of the argument. Rather it is an\nafter-the-fact discussion of his biases. You can certainly discuss someone's\nbiases as long as it is not being used as your sole means of attacking the\nargument. Even in you did, this would still not be a fallacy necessarily\nbecause: \"Where the source taking a position seeks to convince us by a claim\nof authority, or personal observation, observation of their circumstances\nmay reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero\"\n(Wikipedia). Also Walton, quoted above (another version of which I now see\nis actually quoted by Wikipedia at the start of their article).\n\nIf anyone would like to read up on fallacies,\nhttp://www.fallacyfiles.org/is a good resource.\n\nNicholas Goodman " } ] } ] }