[NatureNS] Global Warming

Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:23:43 -0300
From: Lois Codling <loiscodling@hfx.eastlink.ca>
To: Nature NS <naturens@chebucto.ns.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2pre)
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <naturens-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;"| (cd /csuite/info/Environment/FNSN/MList; /csuite/lib/arch2html)"

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects


Hi Flora,

You're right, I spelled 'hominem' wrong.

But you're wrong in your re-statement of the argument.  Chris did use 
'ad hominem' arguments, which are a logical fallacy.  The claim being 
discussed is whether *human-caused* climate change is true (N.B. the 
difference from your statement of the claim).  The qualifications of the 
people on either side of the argument are irrelevant.  If a well-known 
liar says that 2+2=4, does that make it false?  No.  We have to look at 
the statement independently from its source.  Many early scientists were 
amateurs (no scientific qualifications), yet they discovered many 
things.  So for Chris to claim that the scientists who signed the 
Petition Project are a group of deniers comparable to those who deny 
that smoking causes lung cancer, among other 'nasty' politically 
incorrect things, says absolutely nothing about the argument, even if he 
is correct.

Lois
........

[Lois wrote what you see above. Because of her need to care for her 
father, she doesn't have time & energy to continue the discussion, 
though we both (I'm Don, her husband) think it is too important to drop, 
so I'm substituting for her. Unfortunately, I'm not as nice as she is.]

Flora, your expression of claim B is also a misrepresentation of Lois' 
earlier letter. Claim B, in fact, is that Kyoto supporters falsely claim 
a scientific consensus in their favour. Lois wrote, "I am heartily sick 
of  hearing that the consensus of scientists is that human-caused 
climate change is undeniable." The signatures of 30,000 plus scientists 
(in one country alone) to a contrary position demonstrates that the 
claim of consensus is false. The /ad hominem/ argument Chris uses 
appears to be an attempt to bolster a claim of consensus by saying that 
those who disagree are not worth counting.

Any argument addressed to the character or qualifications of the 
opponent is /ad hominem/, unless the question is the suitability of that 
person for some position. In that case alone, it deals with the question 
at issue. It is appropriate to consider the character of someone running 
for political office, for example, because that speaks to his ability to 
fulfil that office.

The issue is truth, wherever it falls. When you misstate someone's 
claims & give more attention to the "character" of a speaker than to the 
argument he or she is making, it gives the impression that your concern 
is to win an argument, not to find truth. When, instead of addressing a 
group's theories & the evidence they cite, you ask "are their opinions 
worthy of consideration?", you are communicating that truth doesn't 
matter to you, only authority. I trust that was not your intent.

David Webster answered appropriately, by citing an article which 
presents evidence which seems to be contrary to the argument in the 
Petition Proposal article, & by indicating his disagreement with some of 
their reasoning. That takes us somewhere on the quest for truth. Lois & 
I both appreciated the fact that he dealt with issues & not persons.

David, I for one would be interested to hear more specifics about your 
disagreements with them.

Don Codling

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects