Originally posted by Bosse de NageI wouldn't deign to grace their steps, not even if you paid me.
It's the content. For example he seems to be off the mark about suicide bombing. Maybe he hasn't read Pape's book, or orfeo's thread 🙂
When it comes to science he's usually right, so the style is appropriate. In this book he comes across like howardgee with tenure. Or something.
I don't think he's really interested in religion except as a targ ...[text shortened]... ld invite him to the RHP Spirituality Forum. Didn't scottishinnz study at Cambridge...?
Nope, Dundee and Aberdeen for me!
Originally posted by rwingettOf course I didn't read the articles.
Of course I didn't read the articles. Why would I? I'll read the book and form my own opinion.
Then it was an ad hominem argument. Thanks.
Why would I?
Same reason you'd look at multiple news sources for the same event.
I'll read the book and form my own opinion.
Unless you've got a better grounding in philosophy than some of these reviewers, your opinion isn't going to be worth much either.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI was about to write a whole bunch of stuff but then I had to ask, what do you mean by philosophical grounding? A rack of degrees or something else? A person can be totally uneducated and have an excellent philosophical grounding.
Unless you've got a better grounding in philosophy than some of these reviewers, your opinion isn't going to be worth much either.
(Your comment about the value of rwingett's is an ad hominem...tit for tat.)
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNo, I wasn't talking about a rack of degrees (though that could help). In this specific case of Dawkins vs. religion, I was referring to a sufficient understanding of the topic to evaluate the arguments presented. For instance, if Dawkins were to criticise Aquinas's First Cause argument based on a Humean notion of causality (Aquinas used the Aristotelian notion -- which is quite different), the reader will need to know that if his evaluation of the argument is going to be an informed one. That's the kind of thing I was referring to.
I was about to write a whole bunch of stuff but then I had to ask, what do you mean by philosophical grounding? A rack of degrees or something else? A person can be totally uneducated and have an excellent philosophical grounding.
(Your comment about the value of rwingett's is an ad hominem...tit for tat.)
Typically, in works written by academics for lay persons, one assumes that the academic arguments are correct. But, if they aren't, then the lay reader isn't always (or even often enough) in a good position to make a proper judgment.
Re: my comment on RWillis's opinion -- I agree that it was both an ad hominem and tit for tat. Since ad hominems appear to be an acceptable form of argumentation in RWillis's thinking, I would simply point out that this could be turned against him.
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhat ridiculous snobbery. I guess we should all just wait around to be told what to think by the "experts". Why read any books at all?
[b]Of course I didn't read the articles.
Then it was an ad hominem argument. Thanks.
Why would I?
Same reason you'd look at multiple news sources for the same event.
I'll read the book and form my own opinion.
Unless you've got a better grounding in philosophy than some of these reviewers, your opinion isn't going to be worth much either.[/b]
Originally posted by lucifershammerI'm incapable of such philosophical niceties at a formal level (mine is an intuitive nous), but my BS detector swings into the red when Dawkins goes off about religion, while it is not affected by his pronouncements on science. It's a good thing to have a functioning, up-to-date BS detector.
That's the kind of thing I was referring to. Dawkins isn't about to point out the difference.
Re: my comment on RWillis's opinion -- I agree that it was both an ad hominem and tit for tat. Since ad hominems appear to be an acceptable form of argumentation in RWillis's thinking, I would simply point out that this could be turned against him.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagehttp://www.thecryptmag.com/Online/29/BullsitDetector.html
I'm incapable of such philosophical niceties at a formal level (mine is an intuitive nous), but my BS detector swings into the red when Dawkins goes off about religion, while it is not affected by his pronouncements on science. It's a good thing to have a functioning, up-to-date BS detector.
You'll need to add an 'h' in an appropriate place for the address to work. Robomod didn't like it for obvious reasons.
Originally posted by no1marauderTo become experts, of course. 🙂
What ridiculous snobbery. I guess we should all just wait around to be told what to think by the "experts". Why read any books at all?
Glad to see you back on this thread. Distrust of experts and excessive reliance on one's own intellect should be right up your alley.
Originally posted by lucifershammerAnd kowtowing to whatever you regard as authority is right up yours; you would have made a great private in the Waffen SS.
To become experts, of course. 🙂
Glad to see you back on this thread. Distrust of experts and excessive reliance on one's own intellect should be right up your alley.
Originally posted by lucifershammer
No, I wasn't talking about a rack of degrees (though that could help). In this specific case of Dawkins vs. religion, I was referring to a sufficient understanding of the topic to evaluate the arguments presented. For instance, if Dawkins were to criticise Aquinas's First Cause argument based on a Humean notion of causality (Aquinas used the Aristotelian notion -- which is quite different), the reader will need to know that if his evaluation of the argument is going to be an informed one. That's the kind of thing I was referring to.
If you apply this notion to all pieces of writing you'll never be able to unravel any philosophical text at all, since you'll need to know; not the ideas presented, but the ideas which allowed the ideas the writer had to come into play, and so on for the previous authors (if any) of the preceeding ideas etc. There must be a level at which ideas, regardless of their origin can be interpreted and critiqued avoiding the originating philosophical standpoint. In this way it makes no difference whether Acquinas based his idea on Aristotle or Hume or some completely unknown person. The idea's presentation is what is important. Likewise, the interpretation and rebuttal of that idea, whilst obviously being based on personal bias/knowledge should, when presented, be free from the conceptual pyramid of experiences that gave birth to it. Otherwise a Humean and an Aristotelean may never converse over an idea which was formed from, say, Kant.
Typically, in works written by academics for lay persons, one assumes that the academic arguments are correct. But, if they aren't, then the lay reader isn't always (or even often enough) in a good position to make a proper judgment.
How do you suggest one could know this, if they are unable to evaluate the argument because they are unfamiliar with Aristotle for example? Who is to say that Aristotle was correct? If all arguments are correct in academic work, what is to discuss? The history of an argument should not overpower its function and limit its interpretation.
Originally posted by StarrmanIf you apply this notion to all pieces of writing you'll never be able to unravel any philosophical text at all, since you'll need to know; not the ideas presented, but the ideas which allowed the ideas the writer had to come into play, and so on for the previous authors (if any) of the preceeding ideas etc.
Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]No, I wasn't talking about a rack of degrees (though that could help). In this specific case of Dawkins vs. religion, I was referring to a sufficient understanding of the topic to evaluate the arguments presented. For instance, if Dawkins were to criticise Aquinas's First Cause argument based on a Humean notion e history of an argument should not overpower its function and limit its interpretation.[/b]
Not at all. If you look at the example I gave (Aristotelian cause vs. Humean cause), I am not arguing that the full historical background of these be provided. But, if Dawkins is going to read the word "cause" in terms of Humean cause every time Aquinas uses it (instead of Aristotelian cause, which he actually used) then clearly the ideas being presented are strawmen. If he then goes on to claim that he's refuted Aquinas's First Cause argument, then the unaware reader is not going to know that he hasn't.
This is very much about the ideas being presented.
How do you suggest one could know this, if they are unable to evaluate the argument because they are unfamiliar with Aristotle for example?
Read around. Read what people who do actually understand the issues involved say about it. Perhaps read up Aristotle yourself.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou make the mistake of assuming that ad hominem arguments are never valid. Quite the contrary, we use them all the time. A lawyer, seeking to discredit a witness, will use ad hominem arguments to show he is not trustworthy. If you are using an appeal to authority (as with your reference to the book reviewer) we need to establish the credentials of that supposed authority. My ad hominem attack on the reviewer from the Christian Times as not being an impartial source, and having an inherant bias, was a valid one.
Then it was an ad hominem argument. Thanks.
Any stupid retard* with a proper grounding in philosophy would know this.
*abusive ad hominem.