--------------61ED7E9D2B55
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I am forwarding this message to the Evolution mailing list from someone
who recently joined the list but can't get the list to accept his
messages yet.
Ed
--------------61ED7E9D2B55
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Received: by mail for cynic
(with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.21 1997/08/10) Sat May 30 01:38:48 1998)
X-From_: hardie@globalserve.net Sat May 30 01:15:59 1998
Return-Path: <hardie@globalserve.net>
Received: from smtp2.globalserve.net (smtp2.globalserve.net [209.90.128.7])
by mail.net-link.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id BAA06579
for <cynic@net-link.net>; Sat, 30 May 1998 01:15:59 -0400
Received: from hardie (miketh@dialin158.vancouver.globalserve.net [209.47.102.222])
by smtp2.globalserve.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id BAA21839
for <cynic@net-link.net>; Sat, 30 May 1998 01:21:51 -0400 (EDT)
(envelope-from hardie@globalserve.net)
Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980529221528.006894c8@mail.globalserve.net>
X-Sender: hardie@mail.globalserve.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.2 (32)
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 22:15:28 -0700
To: cynic@net-link.net
From: Mike Hardie <hardie@globalserve.net>
Subject: Greetings; ad hominem
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hello, folks. I've been reading this listserve's WWW archives for some
time now, and finally decided to subscribe. I am here primarily to learn
more about the evolution issue, and will probably participate very little
in the future. (Or, if I do participate, it will be with the explicit
disclaimer that I have very little relevant experience or education.) Just
for the record, though: I do accept the theory of evolution (as I
understand it).
One issue I did want to address, however, is the issue of "ad hominem",
which I have seen dominating the discussion for quite some time.
The formal fallacy "argumentum ad hominem" is, simply put, the fallacy of
concluding that an argument is wrong based on the personal character of the
person propounding the argument. This *only* applies when someone tries to
make character an issue when it truly is not relevant. If someone makes a
criticism of character which *is* relevant, it is not a fallacy, and
consequently not "ad hominem".
For example, suppose that I were to say, "look, my credentials are
impeccable. You can believe me that evolution is true." Suppose someone
were then to retort, "no, you are just a philosophy student, and have no
relevant credentials whatsoever" (which, in my case, would actually be
true). Is that retort "ad hominem"? No, because I myself made my
character (or, specifically, my credentials) an issue upon which my
argument rested. Criticizing it, therefore, is entirely appropriate and
*not* a fallacy. (Discussion of credentials in general rarely constitute
"ad hominem", in fact, simply because they are often very much a relevant
issue.)
But, I have to say, it seems to me that "ad hominem" is really an
irrelevant issue for this list. Why don't you scientific types get on with
the science, and leave we philosophicky types to dicker over the pedantic
Latin terms? :)
Regards,
Mike Hardie
<hardie@globalserve.net>
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/4534
--------------61ED7E9D2B55--