- Deconstruction & Necessity
- Is Jacques Derrida Serious? How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love
- Logging out…
I've heard people say that they wouldn't trust Wikipedia as a source, and I tried to tell them that we change things when they aren't right which still of course wouldn't help the person getting bad information from an article before it's corrected , but now I'm beginning to agree with them. Maprovonsha 1 July UTC.
How about instead of saying "tarring," you point out one false accusation. I think I've presented a pretty good case: you don't know what the hell you're talking about and yet you persist, for the only apparent reason that you wish to discredit Derrida's detractors in his article. And what do you mean by "invoking Sokal and postmodernism"?
Did you even read what I said? Here's exactly what I said in case you didn't read it the first time:. You see, I said "I'm reminded" of Sokal's book because your arguments invite comparison with those postmodernist writings he tore apart in his book. It invites comparison because the postmodernists used technical scientific terminology they apparently didn't understand, you're using technical philosophical terminology you apparently don't understand.
My point is that everyone knows what insult means, and as Conf said, insult carries a very negative connotation, so why not call it an insult?
- Rent Derrida () on DVD and Blu-ray - DVD Netflix.
- What Is It Like to Be a Philosopher?!
- Log in to start using My Beatport!;
- Small-Town Sweethearts (Mills & Boon Love Inspired)?
- What Is It Like to Be a Philosopher?.
It is an insult. It is also a legitimate ad hominem, but to laypeople a legitimate ad hominem implies truthfulness and "ad hominem" implies falsity. Wikipedia is not written for technical people, it is written for everyone. As I said about Frankfurt's essay, On Bullshit, it is this democratization of information that has led to the low quality of many of wikipedia's articles.
Wikipedia lets anyone write anything, sometimes patent nonsense is removes, othertimes many people agree with it and it is therefore truth by consensus. That is a logical fallacy. It is argumentum ad populum to think that the majority knows what is right. And if every other Wikipedian agrees with you every other Wikipedian is wrong. In a democracy we should have have liberty, but liberty must be restrained so one doesn't hinder a neighbor's liberty. Perhaps we should have permits on Wikipedia, allowing some users to write on topics they are versed in.
A permit for classical music, a permit for psychology, and a permit for philosophy. As it is now, it is absurd for people who don't know all that much about philosophy to be making grandoise philosophical claims "this argument is circular," "that's an ad hominem" when they clearly don't know what they are talking about. Yes Bertrand Russell is my favorite philosopher, but I never defend him irrationally. He is not without error.
As a matter of fact I've never written anything on his article or talk page. But you obviously have a thing for Derrida, and you defend him irrationally, as I said; "despite the facts. You haven't presented good arguments, on the contrary you and your sympathizer Sloat have shown that you don't have a rudimentary understanding of formal reasoning or should I say one you get from only reading the wikipedia article , though you both will defend Derrida to the teeth invoking your limited knowledge of formal reasoning.
I say, only philosophers and philosophy students should edit philosophy pages, who's with me?theranchhands.com/images/historical/going-in-and-out-my-window.php
Deconstruction & Necessity
Maprovonsha 4 July UTC. As it is, Buffy, you're wrong, I've shown you're wrong, and instead of answering to my arguments put forth in the first post under this new heading, you continue with your card-stacking or as you like to say, cherry-picking bullshit. I now understand why people don't trust wikipedia. It's almost laughable how wikipedia works. You say we aren't supposed to edit the article until we've reached an agreement, yet you change the article. Do you think the rules don't apply to you, or do you just make up rules as they suit you?
I'm going to change it back, and you can't say I'm going against any "rule" because if it only applies to me it isn't really a rule. The current edit seems perfect, containing neither "insult" nor "ad hominem," indeed revealing both as unnecessary. I fail to forsee how anyone could find it problematic in any way. I hope it is to everyone's liking and we can put this one to rest. First, I am fine with these edits; I think this is a lot of garbage to go through over one word.
Is Jacques Derrida Serious? How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love
But I have to reply to many of your comments which are well beyond this one word. First, I am a university professor of communication studies , with a focus on rhetoric , and yes I do have training in philosophy and formal logic; as I said, one of the courses I teach is argumentation , and I use the Damer book Attacking Faulty Reasoning , which you cited approvingly early in this discussion.
I also attend and contribute to national and international conferences on argumentation and philosophy, and I have been working in this field for well over a decade. This is all to respond to your nitpicking about qualifications -- no, I am not a "philosophy student," but that does not mean, as you imply, that I do not "know what I'm talking about.
And I'll be frank about it -- I think Sokal is full of it, I don't think he understands half of the theorists he criticizes, and, as you admit, he says nothing that has any relevance to Derrida's work; Derrida is not a "postmodernist" in any case. Finally your comments about logic are ludicrous here, and you would not likely do well in my argumentation class with such claims.
In your example -- P1 is totally irrelevant, and P2 and C are basically the same claim reworded. It's basically an argument by definition. I'm not sure why you throw in P1 -- prob ably just to make it look like part of the claim, but it is not. And as you are well aware, the term charlatan means one who cannot be believed.
It is an insult, yes, and in the context of dismissing Derrida's or anyone else's arguments, it is an ad hominem. Instead of, say, engaging the arguments made by Derrida or whoever , you attack the man -- ignore his arguments, you claim; he is just a charlatan, one given to making things up. This is an ad hominem as any of the books on reasoning that you yourself cite will tell you. Your claim that this is not an ad hominem seems to be pure stubbornness. And you yourself resort to faulty reasoning -- telling me I don't know what I'm talking about and claiming some kind of authority because you took a freshman philosophy class or whatever.
I defy you to quote a passage from one of your logic texts that explains that this kind of insult is a "legitimate" argument. It is clearly an ad hominem, though I could care less whether that claim is made on wikipedia. What I think is really bizarre is that this is for you the main point of entry into an anti-derrida position. Obviously you don't like Derrida's work, but instead of actually discussing it, you prefer to make a big deal out of whether calling him a charlatan is an ad hominem. It's quite telling, when all is said and done. As for the ad hominem issue, I'm not saying it isn't ad hominem, I'm saying it's no not the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem because it follows.
I couldn't agree with you more, my edit doesn't promote or attack either side. I don't see any reason to grant any compromise with Maprovonsha on this issue. He is plainly wrong on the premises he has offered. Saying that this is hair-splitting is generous.
If anything, we're trying to settle the issue just to stop the argument here, which has definitely dragged on. I see even less reason to compromise with someone who is willing to argue about the validity of ad hominem debate and logical formalism while making personal attacks, using fallacious ad hominem argument, using profanity, failing to demonstrate a strong command of formal argument, and admitting that he has done no research to try to review the texts cited in the article whose characterisation is in question.
I have no idea how he would hope to support this contention without textual citations showing that critics, particularly those named in the section, have engaged in insult rather than argument. After a couple of exchanges, status of argumentation was no longer the issue. Maprovonsha argued that some ad hominems can be legitimate, although none of the hypothetical examples appear logically well-formed. Exemplary legitimate arguments would be of the form:. This argument is well-formed: you have a premise by which the subject stakes his credibility on a claim, which turns out to be false, and one thereafter ought to take further claims with prejudice against that person's credibility.
This argument is fallacious:. This, however, is the form of ad hominem that Maprovonsha has used non-hypothetically in this argument. This form is fallacy: if the premise of an ad hominem conclusion is based on what does not logically follow, then the ad hominem is logically fallacious.
We have another hypothetical example that has been argued repeated and is here being disputed as fallacy. Such an argument is of the form:. Here we accept the implication of charlatanism, but the premise is assumed and the conclusion implicit in that assumption.
- Le livre noir de la droite (essai français) (French Edition).
- TUITION BOOK - Je Cherche - 21 Short Studies on Contemporary Modes - Cycle I - C. ROYER-CARDONA - Solo Flute (French Edition).
- Rising Above Corruption: South Africa, Brazil and India (World Politics Review Features)!
- Ravishing Magic Wand Nite.
- Audreys Sunrise.
- Special Delivery (A Romantic Comedy) (Hollywood Hills Series Book 1)?
- Soda_Jerk's Theatre of Ghosts!
For the argument to be logically valid as an ad hominem, the deduction must follow; here it does not: the claim is introduced without any force of logical necessity, relying instead on the strength of an assertion that must be elsewhere be demonstrated. That the logic is not demonstrated here should be reason to regard it as suspect, yet this is the sort of example that we have been asked to accept as a "legitimate" ad hominem, not on the basis of a citation from the list of argumentation texts to which Maprovonsha has made reference but based on a discussion from an Internet bulletin board.
If one were to accept this form of argument, the apparent effect would make "legitimate ad hominems" of what was previously agreed to be a non-argumentative insult.