Platt:
> You asked:
> The question I have for anyone willing to take it on is why do 3WD and
> others (including myself) consider ad hominems to be low quality?
> What principle or principles of the MOQ make such attacks immoral?
While I agree with what you wrote after this about emotions influencing
intellect, I think the answer to this first question is simpler (and one
need not resort to the MoQ to show why ad hominem argument is of low Quality
in philosophical discussion).
Ad Hominem attacks are low quality in philosophy simply b/c the veracity
of a statment is completely independent from its source. If I'm not
mistaken, somewhere in ZMM Pirsig reminds us that just because the biggest
fool in the world says the sun is shining doesn't mean it's dark out (I
can't find the quote, but I'm pretty sure its in there somewhere).
Therefore, insulting or belittling the credentials of one's opponent in
argument may (or may not) win an audience to your side, but logically it
literally does absolutely nothing towards making your case, or refuting your
opponents.
This is not to say that the character and reputation of a speaker is
entirely meaningless. For example,whether or not we believe someone is
being truthful with us will certainly influence the practical considerations
of an argument. We might ask them to prove their assertions of fact more
often than we would if we trusted them. But just b/c a man has a
propensity to lie doesn't mean that everything out of his mouth is false.
For example...
Struan informs us that Anthony's status as a lecturer is questionable...
Had this turned out to be true (and I believe Anthony's response, has more
put the issue to rest) it would have influenced to me to use a higher
measure of scrutiny when examining Anthony's assertions of fact in this
forum. If he cited some philosopher for a certain proposition I would be
more inclined to go look it up rather than take his word on it. But, the
mere fact that he would have been exposed as a liar is logically meaningless
to me when it comes to evaluating his logical positions on the MoQ or
Metaphysics (---if Plato had gone around falsely telling his buddies he was
a black-belt in karate, would it make 'the Republic' any less meaningful or
impressive???).
Note that in this case Struan seems to have believed that Anthony had
deliberately mislead the forum as to his credentials and it was for the
purpose of dispelling this alleged fraud that he brought the topic up.
Whether or not Struan was also ultimately suggesting that this somehow
pronounced on the quality of Anthony's arguments is known only to him--- and
for our purposes here, is irrelevant. The point is that credibility does
not equal veracity (or in MoQ speak... Social Q does not equal Intellectual
Quality).
One last point: Struan's attack on Anthony is also a wonderful example
of the biggest danger of an ad hominem attack... that is... If you call a
man a liar in front of a crowd, and the crowd later learns he was telling
the truth, guess who they're not gonna trust anymore.... Struan's
accusations (while made, I have no doubt, in Good Faith that they were true)
have shown off sloppy researching skills [he claimed the website would not
list Anthony as faculty when in fact it does] and a trait for jumping to
conclusions [why not ask about his suspicions rather than accuse???]. I
will surely approach Struan's future assertions of fact with a grain of salt
and a raised eyebrow.
rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:41 BST