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