<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18999">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>OK, one more attempt.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>From <EM>Logic</EM> by Wesley Salmon, one of the
20th century best known and most formidable inductive logicians discussing
fallacies and some apparent fallacies which may not be:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>[<A
href="http://www.ditext.com/salmon/logic.html">http://www.ditext.com/salmon/logic.html</A></FONT><FONT
size=2 face=Verdana>]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<P><B>25. ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PERSON </B></P>
<P>The <I>argument against the person</I><SUP>4</SUP> is a type of argument that
concludes that a statement is false because it was made by a certain person. It
is closely related to the argument from authority, but it is negative rather
than positive. In the argument from authority, the fact that a certain person
asserts p is taken as evidence that p is true. In the <I>argument against the
person</I>, the fact that a certain person asserts p is taken as evidence that p
is false. </P>
<P>In analyzing the argument from authority, we saw that it could be put into an
inductively correct form, a special case of the statistical syllogism. To do so,
it was necessary to include a premise of the form "x is a reliable authority
concerning p." We discussed the characteristics of reliable authorities. The
argument against the person can be handled similarly. To accomplish this end we
need an analogous premise involving the concept of a <I>reliable
anti-authority</I>. A reliable anti-authority about a given subject is a person
who almost always makes false statements about that subject. We have the
following inductively correct argument form: </P>
<P>
<TABLE>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>a]</TD>
<TD>x is a reliable anti-authority concerning p. <BR>x asserts p. </TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD>∴</TD>
<TD>Not-p (i.e., p is false). </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></P>
<P>Like the argument from authority, this is also a special case of the
statistical syllogism. It could be rewritten: </P>
<P>
<TABLE>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>b]</TD>
<TD>The vast majority of statements made by x concerning subject S are
false. <BR>p is a statement made by x concerning subject S. </TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD>∴</TD>
<TD>p is false. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></P>
<P>It must be emphasized that a reliable anti-authority is not merely someone
who fails to be a reliable authority. A person who is not a reliable authority
cannot be counted upon to be right most of the time. This is far different from
being consistently wrong. An unreliable authority is a person who cannot be
counted upon at all. The fact that such a person makes a statement is evidence
for neither its truth nor its falsity. </P>
<P>Schema a is, as we have said, inductively correct, but whether it has any
utility depends upon whether there are any reliable anti-authorities. It will be
useless if we can never satisfy the first premise. Although there are not many
cases in which we can say with assurance that a person is a reliable
anti-authority, there does seem to be at least one kind of reliable
anti-authority, namely, scientific cranks.<SUP>5</SUP> They can be identified by
several characteristics. </P>
<OL>
<LI>They usually reject, in wholesale fashion, all of established science or
some branch of it. </LI>
<LI>They are usually ignorant of the science they reject. </LI>
<LI>The accepted channels of scientific communication are usually closed to
them. Their theories are seldom published in scientific journals or presented
to scientific societies. </LI>
<LI>They regard opposition of scientists to their views as a result of the
prejudice and bigotry of scientific orthodoxy. </LI>
<LI>Their opposition to established science is usually based upon a real or
imagined conflict between science and some extrascientific doctrine --
religious, political, or moral. </LI></OL>
<P>A "scientific" theory propounded by a person who has the foregoing
characteristics is very probably false. </P>
<P>Great scientific innovators propose theories that are highly unorthodox and
they meet with strenuous opposition from the majority of scientists at the time.
Nevertheless, they are not cranks, according to our criteria. For instance,
highly original scientific theorists are, contrary to characteristic 2,
thoroughly familiar with the theories they hope to supersede. Furthermore, we
must note, deductive validity has not been claimed for schema a. The fact that a
statement is made by a reliable anti-authority does not prove conclusively that
it is false. We cannot claim with certainty that no scientific crank will ever
produce a valuable scientific result. </P>
<P>Although the argument against the person does have the inductively correct
form a, it is frequently misused. These misuses are usually substitutions of
emotional appeal for logical evidence. Instead of showing that someone who makes
a statement is a reliable anti-authority, the misuser vilifies the person by
attacking that person's personality, character, or background. The first premise
of a is replaced by an attempt to arouse negative feelings. For example, </P>
<P>
<TABLE>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>c]</TD>
<TD>In the 1930s the Communist party in Russia rejected the genetic
theories of Gregor Mendel, an Austrian monk, as "bourgeois idealism." A
party orator who said "The Mendelian theory must be regarded as the
product of a monkish bourgeois mind" would be guilty of a fallacious use
of the argument against the person. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></P>
<P>Clearly, the national, social, and religious background of the originator of
a theory is irrelevant to its truth or falsity. Being an Austrian monk does not
make Mendel a reliable anti-authority in genetics. The condemnation of the
Mendelian theory on these grounds is an obvious case of arousing negative
emotions rather than providing negative evidence. It is also an instance of the
<I>genetic fallacy</I> (section 3). A subtler form of the same fallacy may be
illustrated as follows: </P>
<P>
<TABLE>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>d]</TD>
<TD>Someone might claim that there is strong psychoanalytic evidence in
Plato's philosophical writings that he suffered from an unresolved oedipal
conflict and that his theories can be explained in terms of this neurotic
element in his personality. It is then suggested that Plato's
philosophical theories need not be taken seriously because they are thus
explained. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></P>
<P>Even if we assume that Plato had an Oedipus complex, the question still
remains whether his philosophical doctrines are true. They are not <I>explained
away</I> on these psychological grounds. Having an Oedipus complex does not make
anyone a reliable anti-authority. </P>
<P>Just as the argument from consensus is a special form of the argument from
authority, similarly there is a <I>negative argument from consensus</I> which is
a special form of the argument against the person. According to this form of
argument, a conclusion is to be <I>rejected</I> if it is accepted by a group
that has negative prestige. For example, </P>
<P>
<TABLE>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>e]</TD>
<TD>Chinese Communists believe that married women should have the right to
use their own family names. </TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD>∴</TD>
<TD>Married women should be compelled to adopt the family names of their
husbands. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></P>
<P>This argument is clearly an attempt to arouse negative attitudes toward some
aspects of women's liberation. </P>
<P>There is one fundamental principle that applies both to the argument from
authority and to the argument against the person. If there is objectively, a
strong probability relation between the truth or falsity of a statement and the
kind of person who made it, then that relation can be used in a correct
inductive argument. It becomes the first premise in a statistical syllogism. Any
argument from the characteristics of the person who made a statement to the
truth or falsity of the statement, in the absence of such a probability
relation, is invariably incorrect. These fallacious arguments are often
instances of the <I>genetic fallacy</I> (section 3). Example c of section 3, as
well as example c of this section, illustrates this point. </P>
<HR>
<P>4 The argument against the person is closely related to, but not identical
with the traditional arsumentum ad hominem. This departure from tradition is
motivated by the symmetry between the argument from authority and the argument
against the person, and by the fact that the argument against the person is
reducible to statistical syllogism. </P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=deco@moscow.com href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, January 19, 2011 11:00
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] (no
subject)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>I give up.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=lfalen@turbonet.com href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=deco@moscow.com
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> ; <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, January 19, 2011 10:09
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] (no
subject)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Quit trying to be coy. Come right out and say what the hell
you mean.<BR>Roger<BR>-----Original message-----<BR>From: "Art Deco" <A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A><BR>Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011
11:40:49 -0800<BR>To: "Vision 2020" <A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>Subject:
Re: [Vision2020] (no subject)<BR><BR>> Further
evidence.<BR>> ----- Original Message -----
<BR>> From: lfalen <BR>> To: Art Deco ; Vision
2020 <BR>> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 10:00
AM<BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] (no subject)<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> No, I do not get your
drift.<BR>> Roger<BR>> -----Original
message-----<BR>> From: "Art Deco" <A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A><BR>> Date:
Fri, 14 Jan 2011 13:37:30 -0800<BR>> To: "Vision 2020" <A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] (no subject)<BR>> <BR>> >
Roger's post below is not a kudos of Rumelhart's posts; rather a
condemnation (if you get the drift).<BR>> >
<BR>> > w.<BR>> > -----
Original Message ----- <BR>> > From: lfalen
<BR>> > To: Paul Rumelhart ; Andreas Schou
<BR>> > Cc: <A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>
<BR>> > Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 12:11
PM<BR>> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] (no
subject)<BR>> > <BR>> >
<BR>> > I think that you are one of the most
reasonable people who post here and I agree with about 90% of your
posts.<BR>> > Roger<BR>>
> -----Original message-----<BR>>
> From: Paul Rumelhart <A
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</A><BR>>
> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 21:50:07 -0800<BR>>
> To: Andreas Schou <A
href="mailto:ophite@gmail.com">ophite@gmail.com</A><BR>>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] (no subject)<BR>>
> <BR>> > > <BR>>
> > I tend to annoy everybody, I think. It's a
special trait of mine.<BR>> > >
<BR>> > > I haven't met very many people on
the list in real life. I know Sue <BR>>
> > Hovey, I've met Nick Gier, and I've talked to Keely on
the phone.<BR>> > > <BR>>
> > I miss some of the old-timers that haven't been around
in a while. Is <BR>> > > Chasuk still
around somewhere? There have been periods of time where I
<BR>> > > haven't followed the list as much
as I'd like, so maybe I just haven't <BR>> >
> seen his posts.<BR>> > >
<BR>> > > Although Ted and I are constantly
beating our heads against each other, <BR>> >
> I respect his character and can confidently say that he's a principled
<BR>> > > person who cares deeply about the
environment. Nothing wrong with <BR>> >
> that. As I tend to get a bit snarky in my responses far too
regularly, <BR>> > > I apologize to him now
for the many sarcastic and unfriendly remarks <BR>>
> > I've made over the years.<BR>>
> > <BR>> > > I've talked
with Gary both on and off the list (a few times, anyway) and
<BR>> > > find him to be a good guy.
He calls them like he sees them, and I <BR>> >
> respect that. My path over the last few years is one of realizing
that <BR>> > > even people you differ with
have important things to say and that <BR>> >
> everything is not so black and white as people try to make it
appear. <BR>> > > My opinion of Gary
has changed for the better since I've interacted with <BR>>
> > him, and that can only be a good
sign.<BR>> > > <BR>>
> > Apart from the last few weeks, I haven't interacted
with Joe that much, <BR>> > > but I
appreciate the civil discourse we've had, even though we both
<BR>> > > probably shriek at the walls
various unflattering remarks about each <BR>>
> > other after a long back-and-forth. He's an
intelligent guy, and he also <BR>> > >
calls 'em like he sees 'em, too. That's a good
thing.<BR>> > > <BR>>
> > I've had some good conversations with Donovan, and
find him to be a nice <BR>> > >
guy.<BR>> > > <BR>>
> > Andreas is one of the more reasonable posters on the
list, I enjoy his <BR>> > > posts when I
see them. He seems level-headed and intelligent and wise,
<BR>> > > really.<BR>>
> > <BR>> > > I enjoy
Tom's humorous posts, and appreciate the work he does for the
<BR>> > > community. I'm not as big a
fan of cats as he is, though. Don't hate <BR>>
> > them, mind you, but I'm not as enamored of
them.<BR>> > > <BR>>
> > I enjoy Keely's posts, even though we often disagree
about some things. <BR>> > > I also
enjoy Nicks posts, they are very thought-provoking. There are
<BR>> > > lots of others I'm missing, I'm
sure. Reggie, Roger, Wayne, Jeff, Dan, <BR>>
> > Dave, Deb, and others. All of them nice people
who think I'm a fruitcake ;)<BR>> > >
<BR>> > > It certainly doesn't hurt to take
a break from the mud-slinging and to <BR>> >
> realize that real people actually exist behind their on-line
personas. <BR>> > > This list is an
enigma. It's full of generally nice people who like to
<BR>> > > yell at each other all the
time. It must be the dehumanizing properties <BR>>
> > of the email medium, I guess.<BR>>
> > <BR>> > > Ah well,
back to the mudslinging, I say!<BR>> > >
<BR>> > > Paul<BR>>
> > <BR>> > > Andreas
Schou wrote:<BR>> > > > Gary's one of a
very small number of conservative commentators that<BR>>
> > > I've managed to read consistently since I first
became politically<BR>> > > > aware. In
part, this may be due to the fact that he is one of a
very<BR>> > > > small number of
conservative commentators whom I may annoy precisely<BR>>
> > > as much as he annoys me. But, even where I think
he's wrong, he's at<BR>> > > > least
responsive.<BR>> > >
><BR>> > > > He's also a damn good
locksmith and, as far as I've heard and<BR>> >
> > experienced, a decent human. I only disagree with him about
matters of<BR>> > > > life, death, and
whether and how the government should acquire and<BR>>
> > > spend trillions of dollars. Other than that,
we're cool. And he's not<BR>> > > > the
only conservative here that's made a positive contribution to
the<BR>> > > >
community.<BR>> > >
><BR>> > > > Many of you know my wife
had a brain tumor a couple of years ago and<BR>>
> > > nearly died. I was in Seattle for most of the
relevant period, but I<BR>> > > >
received an unsolicited offer from Doug Farris to bring
over<BR>> > > > casseroles and whatnot.
I couldn't take him up on it (because I<BR>> >
> > suspect his offer didn't extend to driving the casseroles to
Seattle),<BR>> > > > but I appreciated
it more than he knows. And I was genuinely sorry to<BR>>
> > > hear that Pat Kraut died; in all of my
professional dealings with her,<BR>> > >
> through the Nazarene church, she genuinely enacted the
charitable<BR>> > > > values we so
vehemently disagreed about the government
enacting.<BR>> > > ><BR>>
> > > I don't know the rest of the conservatives here
as well. Glenn isn't a<BR>> > > > real
person (though I once had a perfectly civil lunch with the
person<BR>> > > > I believe he is).
Donovan Arnold probably wouldn't kick a puppy unless<BR>>
> > > the puppy really had it coming. Jeff Harkins is
sometimes genuinely<BR>> > > > helpful,
and bright and dedicated, if sometimes glib.<BR>>
> > ><BR>> > > > I
realize that it'll soon be time to get back to shouting at
each<BR>> > > > other. As we should.
Isn't that why we're all here? (Maybe not Paul.<BR>>
> > > He doesn't seem like a crank. I mean that as a
compliment.) But in the<BR>> > > >
spirit Dear Leader proposes, I think taking a moment to appreciate
the<BR>> > > > people we will soon be
throwing rotten fruit at seems appropriate.<BR>>
> > ><BR>> > > > --
ACS<BR>> > > ><BR>>
> > >
=======================================================<BR>>
> > > List services made available by First Step
Internet, <BR>> > > > serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>>
> >
>
<A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A>
<BR>> > >
> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>
> > >
=======================================================<BR>>
> > ><BR>> > >
> <BR>> > >
<BR>> > >
=======================================================<BR>>
> > List services made available by First Step
Internet, <BR>> > > serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>>
>
>
<A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A>
<BR>> >
> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>
> >
=======================================================<BR>>
> <BR>> >
=======================================================<BR>>
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
<BR>> > serving the communities of the
Palouse since 1994. <BR>>
>
<A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A>
<BR>>
>
<A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>
>
=======================================================<BR>>
> <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> <BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>