»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Just a quick note
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Just a quick note |
|
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I love what's going on right now but, as a moderator, I have to ask for a little restraint. No, no one has actually accused anyone no one has been personally attacked but it's getting close. We restrain ourselves, not just because of the rules, but because the conversation continues more constuctively (dare I say, 'fruitfully'  ) by doing so.In this respect, can we stop calling works people quote trash? It may be so, but it's too easily associated with the person who did the quoting. Can we stop describing arguments as useless (ad hominem etc.)? Again, it may be so, but it's too easily associated with the person. Just say you disagree or ask questions. But Brad, you might ask, aren't you guilty of the same thing? I am, I have been, I probably will be again. Nobody's perfect but that doesn't mean a civil conversation shouldn't proceed accordingly. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Thanks, Brad |
||
| © Copyright 2001 Brad - All Rights Reserved | |||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Amen. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Brad, I thank you for this. I'm not very confident, and I don't know what certain terms mean, but, I am here to LEARN....if I feel belittled in some way, all I will learn is reinforcement of self devaluation...I ask of all that they be patient with me---ALWAYS....I will try to understand. (That's why I'm nuts yanno!  ) |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
"If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."--Lewis Carroll Brad, Brad, Brad... Interesting dilema You want us to follow the rules but have no rules... lol...  In the construction of logic, critical thinking, and dare I say .. even ... Philosophy... the rules were always to avoid the classical logical fallacies.. Accent Ad hoc Affirmation of the consequent Amphiboly Anecdotal evidence Argumentum ad antiquitatem Argumentum ad baculum / Appeal to force Argumentum ad crumenam Argumentum ad hominem Argumentum ad ignorantiam Argumentum ad lazarum Argumentum ad logicam Argumentum ad misericordiam Argumentum ad nauseam Argumentum ad novitatem Argumentum ad numerum Argumentum ad populum Argumentum ad verecundiam Audiatur et altera pars Bifurcation Circulus in demonstrando (begging the question) Complex question / Fallacy of interrogation / Fallacy of presupposition Fallacies of composition Converse accident / Hasty generalization Converting a conditional Cum hoc ergo propter hoc Denial of the antecedent The fallacy of accident / Sweeping generalization / Dicto simpliciter Fallacy of division Equivocation / Fallacy of four terms The extended analogy Ignoratio elenchi / Irrelevant conclusion The Natural Law fallacy / Appeal to Nature The "No True Scotsman..." fallacy Non causa pro causa Non sequitur Petitio principii / Begging the question Plurium interrogationum / Many questions Post hoc ergo propter hoc Red herring Reification / Hypostatization Shifting the burden of proof The slippery slope argument Straw man Tu quoque Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle / "A is based on B" fallacies / "...is a type of..." fallacies In the particular instance of argumentum ad hominem noted -- had Bloom been in the room the comments leveled at him could have (in my opinion) been considered personal attacks and struck from the record. Don't the fallacies actually get in the way of the flow of conversation? Isn't that what they are intended to do? The truth, or untruth, of a statement is not dependent upon the person making it -- are there no foul balls in Philosophy(the pip forum)? Is it a personal attack on the batter to call the foul? While the interrogative form of begging the question, ie; "When did you stop beating your wife?" would probably fall directly into the no personal attacks policy -- the argumentative form; 'Smoking pot is illegal because it is against the law' -- now falls under no guidelines at all...logically.. lol or is it that I could call it begging the question but not Circulus in demonstrando? I'll need your answer before I can ever post again. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Oops that didn't sound right. -- I don't mean I'm never going to post again if I don't like your answer.. I mean.. I need your answer before I can formulate my next post. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
LR said: "You want us to follow the rules but have no rules" Yeah, that's what I want you to do. I know I'm guilty of many of the logical fallacies mentioned above, and it doesn't bother me. In fact, there's one that I think isn't a fallacy at all, it's the way things work. I don't have time to check but I think it's argumentum ad populum. Being right doesn't help if nobody listens to you. The only thing I want, really, is that we talk and listen in a more or less civil way. Because if we aren't civil, we won't listen. Don't forget that this is an entertainment forum -- I know, I know that may sound strange to people but I do this because it's fun. Brad |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
expletive.... all I have ever asked desired of this forum was to LEARN... Give me the references and definitions---AGAIN---talk to me like I'm four years old. After all, for all you know? I MIGHT BE. (serenity exits, ducking the cheap shots...) |
||
|
Interloper
since 2000-11-06
Posts 8369Deep in the heart |
Brad, I would never personally attack anyone. I have, as you well know, labeled (here we go again) certain works as a lie. I have addressed certain statements by authors as trash. NEVER have I used these words to describe an individual. As much as I may disagree with people like Bloom, I have only love for him as a person and can only hope he will find the truth one day. Now that I have defended myself needlessly, I will defer to your direction as moderator. [This message has been edited by Interloper (edited 10-31-2001).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, maybe I was just overreacting but religion can get people heated in a heartbeat. I certainly don't mean to demean spirited debate but I would hate to see these interesting discussions go the way of the thread on suicide. As much as I'd like to think that we can discuss anything in a calm and reasoned manner, that is unfortunately not always the case. But maybe I'm reading more into things than I need to. Brad |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
ooooh..... ok.... I get it now Brad... this is Golf!!! rofl suicide thread? don't remember..... serenity -- before worrying about fallacies it would be better to start with a primer in boolean logic -- just don't have the time at the moment -- I'm sorry.. |
||
|
doreen peri Member Elite
since 1999-05-25
Posts 3812Virginia |
god i love this place!!!!!!!  hehe |
||
|
Interloper
since 2000-11-06
Posts 8369Deep in the heart |
Boolean logic - Used only on Halloween? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Reb? OH.... (I looked it up!) NOW I GET IT!!!! AH HAH HAH HAH HA..... came back to add, when I first got my pc, I used to hit the chat rooms asking a kzillion questions, and all I ever got back was "RTFM".....didn't have a clue as to what that meant either....sigh  somebody finally had mercy and spelled it out! [This message has been edited by serenity (edited 11-03-2001).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
