|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale - 11/6/2009 8:30:23 PM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 2309
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: quixote
quote:
To me it still seems like coming up with a theory, to fit an already decided upon conclusion.
This seems to me nothing more than ad hominem, Stephen.
That in no way, shape, or form resembles an ad hominem.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale - 11/6/2009 8:43:33 PM
|
|
|
quixote
Posts: 370
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
That in no way, shape, or form resembles an ad hominem.
Sure it does: the intentions of the arguers are questioned rather than their argument.
_____________________________
The Areopagus
|
|
|
|
|
RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale - 11/6/2009 11:46:36 PM
|
|
|
StephenJ
Posts: 259
Joined: 12/3/2007
Status: offline
|
I'm attacking the basis of the argument, not the person who makes it. That would be an ad hominem.
_____________________________
Rock on!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale - 11/7/2009 12:01:00 AM
|
|
|
quixote
Posts: 370
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
I'm attacking the basis of the argument, not the person who makes it.
This is what was said:
quote:
To me it still seems like coming up with a theory, to fit an already decided upon conclusion.
Bases of arguments do not come up with theories to fit already decided upon conclusions. People do. It's an ad hominem.
_____________________________
The Areopagus
|
|
|
|
|
RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale - 11/7/2009 2:57:02 AM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 2309
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: quixote
quote:
That in no way, shape, or form resembles an ad hominem.
Sure it does: the intentions of the arguers are questioned rather than their argument.
That is also not an ad hominem.
A person can attack one's intentions without making an ad hominem. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone. The fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments. A person can impugn another's motives, intelligence and ancestry all day without making an ad hominem fallacy.
In the context of StephenJ's comment, it wasn't even a personal attack. It was a framing of your position. Whether his framing was accurate or not is a different matter. Regardless, it wasn't an ad hominem.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale - 11/7/2009 12:10:44 PM
|
|
|
quixote
Posts: 370
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
A person can attack one's intentions without making an ad hominem. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone. The fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments. A person can impugn another's motives, intelligence and ancestry all day without making an ad hominem fallacy.
I agree Huang. You can call me an idiot all day and not commit the fallacy as long as it is not used in connection with an attempt to refute my argument.
quote:
In the context of StephenJ's comment, it wasn't even a personal attack. It was a framing of your position. Whether his framing was accurate or not is a different matter. Regardless, it wasn't an ad hominem.
I understand, and was expecting Stephen to make this clarification himself, to which I would have retracted my statement. Appeal to context all you want, his own words subsequently confirmed the context:
quote:
I'm attacking the basis of the argument, not the person who makes it.
making it very clear in his own words that he was in fact attempting to attack the argument, not framing as you imagine.
In so doing, he's offered the arguer's intentions as a reason to deny the argument's soundness, not providing a rational defeater to deny the argument. It's really that simple.
I've read Stephen here frequently, and he doesn't appear to be that kind of arguer customarily. So I still expect him to come back and say exactly what you're saying here: that he actually intended it as just a side observation of the argument itself, not as an attempt to refute the argument. Kinda like a YEC tendency to offer post hoc rationalizations, or something. When he does that, I'll agree with you, but not until, because as long as the intention of the arguers, or the manner in which they argue, is offered as a defeater for the argument itself, it's an obvious ad hominem.
_____________________________
The Areopagus
|
|
|
|
|
RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale - 11/8/2009 2:39:02 AM
|
|
|
StephenJ
Posts: 259
Joined: 12/3/2007
Status: offline
|
Well I know what it's like to be on this board, and have your integrity questioned for simply asking legitimate questions and making honest skeptical inquiry.
If I came across as attacking you personally I apologize.
Back to the question though. I want to ask about another aspect of young earth (or perhaps universe in this case) creationism. What about so called "dead" or "dying" stars. When we see a supernova of a star that's over 6000 light-years does that mean that God created a universe so mature that stars were dying at the moment of their creation? What about neutron stars, red giants, white dwarfs and the ever popular black holes which our most current science (which could be proven wrong one day who knows) says are dead or dying stars? Were they created in that condition?
_____________________________
Rock on!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale - 11/9/2009 8:36:48 PM
|
|
|
Ohioman1972
Posts: 75
Joined: 8/20/2009
Status: offline
|
Since we are arguing philosophy because we cannot prove nor disprove either theory empirically, would it be safe to say that an omnipotent creator would not be bound to the natural laws that he created?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale - 11/10/2009 1:37:54 AM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 863
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: huangshan
quote:
ORIGINAL: quixote
quote:
That in no way, shape, or form resembles an ad hominem.
Sure it does: the intentions of the arguers are questioned rather than their argument.
That is also not an ad hominem.
A person can attack one's intentions without making an ad hominem. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone. The fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments. A person can impugn another's motives, intelligence and ancestry all day without making an ad hominem fallacy.
I have no clue as to the context of this comment, but I think it stands alone well enough to be commented on. To be fair, I think it's perfectly fair and legitimate to question the source of an argument. In a lot of cases this should be done. And we can all agree that this should be done without neglecting an honest evaluation of the argument itself. However, any argument that appeals to personal considerations (such as motives or credentials), rather than to logic or reason, is, by definition, an ad hominem.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale - 11/10/2009 6:47:34 PM
|
|
|
quixote
Posts: 370
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
If I came across as attacking you personally I apologize.
Not in the least, Stephen, and certainly no need to apologize, though I know exactly what you mean by these threads. As I recall, I was commenting on your comment. It was just a side observation, really. No worries.
_____________________________
The Areopagus
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
