<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.17093" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>What I take from this is that while Wayne Fox may
not necessarily be wrong on any given topic just because he has been wrong more
often then not in the past, what can be taken as a given is that he
will reliabley be a condescending prick as past performance has shown
nothing but.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I would put this in the form of an equation by by
business computers character set does not include a
diminutive anthropomorphised penis with a fanny pack and a sour
expression.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>g</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; 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 2:22
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] (no
subject)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2>OK, one more attempt.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2>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 face=Verdana size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2>[<A
href="http://www.ditext.com/salmon/logic.html">http://www.ditext.com/salmon/logic.html</A></FONT><FONT
face=Verdana size=2>]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2></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>They are usually ignorant of the science they reject.
<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>They regard opposition of scientists to their views as a result of the
prejudice and bigotry of scientific orthodoxy.
<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="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; 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 face=Verdana size=2>I give up.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; 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>
<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>=======================================================
<P>
<HR>
<P></P><BR>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com <BR>Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3390 - Release
Date: 01/18/11 23:34:00<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>