Warning for Environmental Whackos

“a) I am not going to play this game for very much longer

b)try this on


As a general proposition if we accept the premise that Milloy is a junk scientist, then we can conclude that his scientific findings are junk.



MInd you this is a general proposition.

One couldn't conclude all of his scientific findngs are junk. For instance, if he boiled water and stuck a thermometer in it to determine its temperature, we could assume tht for varying elevations, he'd com eup iwht the right answers.


As a general proposition Sarge, we can conclude that the positions Milloy advocates are junk, because his scientific method is junk.

I do not have the time (and nor do you I imagine) to wade through each of his claims and weigh the evidence pro and con. Nor frankly do either you or I hav teh expertise.

I merely submit that the Wikpedia excerpt, for what's its worth raises significant doubt as to the validity of his advocay without even scratching the surface.



Again. Regarding your wager. You are going to have to boil it down to a b and c.

I am just too stupid to follow it otherwise.

OH.

And furthermore. YOur hump buddies seem to think I have a crush on you. I think they are jealous of the time we are spending together.”

“I COPIED YOUR AD HOMINEM WORDS VERBATIM!!!

(with spelling corrections)

Now you are claiming we have to introduce ANOTHER phrase to the professor to test if it is an ad hominem INSTEAD of your words because you won't accept YOUR WORDS for the bet???

LMAO!

Classic lee .... CLASSIC!”

“You two would fit right in with the two thousand gay dudes we need to wear tights and a mask and sword so you can be the border fencing. I 'm so happy I think my paints got wet.”

“Ad hominem as logical fallacy
A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

A makes claim X.
There is something objectionable about A.
Therefore claim X is false.
The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit.

Ad hominem is one of the best-known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse (see also Argument from fallacy). As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often, despite its inherent incorrectness.

In constrast, an argument that instead relies (fallaciously) on the positive aspects of the person arguing the case is sometimes known as "positive ad hominem," or appeal to authority.

[edit]
Usage
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or they are wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by them rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the person's argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority. Merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy. It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments. In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. But this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are widely agreed that this use is incorrect.

Examples:

"You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well."
"You feel that abortion should be illegal, but I disagree because you are uneducated and poor."
"Only right-wing nutjobs believe that homosexuals account for 1% to 2% of the population."
Not all ad hominem attacks are insulting:

Example:

"Paula says the umpire made the correct call, but this is false because Paula is too important to pay attention to the game."
This is an ad hominem fallacy, even though it is saying something positive about the person, because it is addressing the person and not the topic in dispute.

Ironically, accusing an opponent of ad hominem can itself be an example of ad hominem if it is worded as an insult: "I'm not going to stand here and let him insult me!" or "My opponent is resorting to logical fallacy to win." or "Since he is out of good argument, he's attacking me." (partial Argument from silence)

[edit]
Gender neutrality
Since the Latin homo refers to all humans, ad hominem is a gender-neutral term (the male-specific term, if it existed, would be ad virum). However, a misconception that the term ad hominem pertains specifically to the male sex has caused the neologism ad feminam to be coined as the supposed female equivalent. The use of ad feminam in such contexts may be considered erroneous or redundant:

"... in which both or multiple parties ... avoid ad hominem and ad feminam judgements ..." (Barbara Levy Simon)
"Almost any ad hominem (or, in this case, ad feminam) response ..." (Marsha M Linehan)
[edit]
Validity
Ad hominem is fallacious when applied to deduction, and not the evidence (or premise) of an argument. Evidence may be doubted or rejected based on the source for reasons of credibility, but to doubt or reject a deduction based on the source is the ad hominem fallacy.

Premises discrediting the person can exist in valid arguments, when the person being criticized is the sole source for a piece of evidence used in one of his arguments.

A committed perjury when he said Q.
We should not accept testimony for which perjury was committed.
Therefore, A 's testimony for Q should be rejected.
[edit]
Subtypes
Three traditionally identified varieties are ad hominem abusive or ad personam, ad hominem circumstantial, and ad hominem tu quoque.

[edit]
Ad hominem abusive or ad personam
Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but damning character flaws or actions. The reason that this is fallacious is that — usually, anyway — insults and even damaging facts simply do not undermine what logical support there might be for one's opponent's arguments or assertions; argumentum ad personam short-circuits these potential arguments from logic in favor of a direct attack on the opponent's authority.

Example:

"You can't believe Jack when he says there is no god because he doesn't even have a job."
[edit]
Ad hominem circumstantial
Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, circumstantial ad hominem constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way. Such arguments are not necessarily irrational, but are not correct in strict logic. This illustrates one of the differences between rationality and logic.

Examples:

"Tobacco company representatives are wrong when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests."
"He's physically addicted to nicotine. Of course he defends smoking!”
Of course, such statements could also be reworded to avoid the logical fallacy:

"Tobacco company representatives are biased when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because of their own multi-million-dollar financial interests. Thus, such statements may be wishful thinking, or even outright lies, on their part."
"He's physically addicted to nicotine. Therefore his defense of smoking may be biased.”

In the following example Jennifer's comment is ad hominem circumstantial attack against Chris's statement:

Chris: "Women should be able to be topless everywhere men can be."
Jennifer: "You're just saying that because you want to see women's breasts."



The Mandy Rice-Davies ploy, "Well, he would [say that], wouldn't he?" is a superb use of this fallacy.

[edit]
Ad hominem tu quoque
Main article: tu quoque
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into tu quoque. (Discuss)
Ad hominem tu quoque refers to an irrelevant accusation of hypocrisy. Accusations of hypocrisy are inadmissible in legal and scientific debate, and can be distractions from the business of politics. That is, it isn't relevant to the credibility of a didactic argument whether its presenter has trod over the principle he espouses. For example, a corrupt lawyer who prosecutes embezzlers may be a sleaze, but in a properly organized legal system there can be no arguments against his defendant just because of that.

[edit]
You-too version
This form of the argument is as follows:

A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, P is dismissed.
This is an instance of the two wrongs make a right fallacy.

Example:

"He cannot accuse me of libel when he has been convicted of libel himself"
[edit]
Inconsistency version
This form of the argument is as follows:

A makes claim P.
A has also made claims which are inconsistent with P.
Therefore, P is false (or is dismissed).
If the conclusion is that "P is false", then this is a logical fallacy because the conclusion that P is false does not follow from the premises; even if A has made past claims which are inconsistent with P, it does not necessarily prove that P is either true or false.

Example:

"You say airplanes are able to fly because of the laws of physics, but this is false because twenty years ago you also said airplanes fly because of magic."
"US Democrats say that we shouldn't participate in war in Iraq, but they supported it after 9/11."
"US Republicans say that CIA intelligence is faulty, but they relied on it when we sent troops to Iraq."
[edit]
Taxonomy
The argumentum ad hominem is a genetic fallacy and red herring, and is often but not necessarily an appeal to emotion. Argumentum ad hominem includes poisoning the well.”

“Read the above.


1) I am surely guilty of committing many logical infallacies by ad homimem attack.

Accusing Milloy's product of generally being junk, or at the least incomplete because his methods are junk is not ad homimem.

I will agree that drawing a specific conclusion that each and every thing he says is wrong because he is a bad scientist is not correct.

I am very comfortable concluding that YOU attempting to debunk what YOU call Environmental Whackos by parroting Milloy's junk science does not make for a fair and well balanced review of the matters at hand.


Any irony in the title of the thread??


Also:

See this paragraph in the definition above:

Ironically, accusing an opponent of ad hominem can itself be an example of ad hominem if it is worded as an insult: "I'm not going to stand here and let him insult me!" or "My opponent is resorting to logical fallacy to win." or "Since he is out of good argument, he's attacking me." (partial Argument from silence)


And this:


Tobacco company representatives are wrong when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests."
"He's physically addicted to nicotine. Of course he defends smoking!”
Of course, such statements could also be reworded to avoid the logical fallacy:

"Tobacco company representatives are biased when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because of their own multi-million-dollar financial interests. Thus, such statements may be wishful thinking, or even outright lies, on their part."
"He's physically addicted to nicotine. Therefore his defense of smoking may be biased.”

In the following example Jennifer's comment is ad hominem circumstantial attack against Chris's statement:

Chris: "Women should be able to be topless everywhere men can be."
Jennifer: "You're just saying that because you want to see women's breasts."”

“Lastly.

You have helped me relearn at least three important lessons.

thank you for that.”

“1. I only glanced through all that. I don't need a lesson in the definition, but thanks.

2. The difference between me calling somebody an "environmental whacko", and you saying "his views are wrong, because ..." are enough that what I said is not an ad hominem because I did not say the reason they are wrong is because they are whacko. You were saying he was wrong "because" he gets paid by so and so.

3. So ... are you going through with the bet or not? Are you admitting your statement was an ad hominem? Not sure, but you seem to be skirting the issue here.”

“Wow! that is a pregnant- not pregnant magnatude difference and to think all over that brime soaked corn they put in manudo.Is that an earth quack- or just 'TT talk?”

“http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2007/09/04/today-shows-environmental-solution-just-get-rid-humans

Matt Lauer: "Also how about this? What would happen to our planet if human beings were to disappear? It's an interesting question. Probably better off. What would happen to our homes, our cities, our landmarks? Actually how long would it take Mother Nature to reclaim what human beings have created?”

“With the lack of pollutants in the air and less direct heat creation , it would probably just about totally the same except totally different.”

“well said”

“Like duh Matt, haven't you ever seen Planet of the Apes before? That's what would happen.”