academic commentary

Matthew Weber · 01 Dec 2010, 21:56 · from 2010-December.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: palaeologos at gmail.com (Matthew Weber)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 13:56:52 -0800
Subject: (urth) academic commentary
In-Reply-To: <4CF6C468.6010001 at gmail.com>
References: <SNT123-W90C362128623D2A57C5AACF240 at phx.gbl>
	<964735.56099.qm at web37604.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<4CF3D13D.1020405 at verizon.net> <4CF3D50C.20400 at gmail.com>
	<4CF3ED73.2020900 at verizon.net>
	<AANLkTikbgXyJTts_02R7sw7sa3f1jd07tMqW-KwdEa+8 at mail.gmail.com>
	<4CF4297A.9090302 at verizon.net> <4CF437C9.6000707 at gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikt_fnrdZS8CUPjeT3P9HRXwPfC-2BHXpjNbRvp at mail.gmail.com>
	<4CF4F047.7090504 at gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimq1Fp_PviFQjq6y=GgB7jzVW_K0-1UxQP_NCyZ at mail.gmail.com>
	<4CF54F7D.7050205 at gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=KbyHRi7K-oB_E11SMEsNQXyuTgn50JXWMd1yf at mail.gmail.com>
	<4CF69C94.8020602 at gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimqS94dUTMk=nPNoM76vU8NmV027z_PH0FZAwzi at mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=1vPK_ZQi+OkwNJisAW3NRGEc1wC6Tg=+E5Mzw at mail.gmail.com>
	<4CF6C468.6010001 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim9vV5tRaOsqMqimNNWXnezsSbTehjiJ9b1pByo at mail.gmail.com>

I think it's in *God in the Dock *where Lewis refers to this argumentative
fallacy as "Bulverism".

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:55 PM, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>  Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote-
> Thus, while your first statement is necessary it is not sufficient: it
> is legitimate, and perhaps even necessary, to ask why <critic> chooses
> the methodology s/he does and not some other methodology. The answer
> to that question is going to be rooted in <critic>'s ideology and
> metaphysics.
>
>
> Analyzing an argument by the supposed motives of the arguer can quickly go
> off the rails.
>
> From "Pilgrim's Regress" by CS Lewis:
>
> "'Come, come,' said the jailor. "You must know your catechism by now. You,
> there' (and he pointed to a prisoner little older than a boy whose name was
> Master Parrot), 'what is argument?'
>
> 'Argument,' said Master Parrot, 'is the attempted rationalization of the
> arguer's desires.'
>
> 'Very good,' replied the jailor, 'but you should turn out your toes and put
> your hands behind your back. That is better. Now: what is the proper answer
> to an argument proving the existence of the Landlord? The proper answer is,
> 'You say that because you are a Steward'.
>
> 'Good boy. But hold your head up. That's right. And what is the answer to
> an argument proving that Mr. Phally's songs are just as brown as Mr.
> Halfways?'
>
> 'There are two only generally necessary to damnation', said master Parrot.
> 'The first is, "You say that because you are a Puritan," and the second is,
> "You say that because you are a sensualist." '
>
> 'Good. Now just one more. What is the answer to an argument turning on the
> belief that two and two make four?'
>
> 'The answer is, "You say that because you are a mathematician." '
>
> 'You are a very good boy,' said the jailor. "
>
>
> u+16b9
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>



-- 
Matt +

No one knows what he can do till he tries.
    Publilius Syrus (First century B.C.), Maxim 786
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20101201/161236af/attachment.htm>

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net