[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] ISO merged ontology effort "MCO"

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Ryan Kohl <kohl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:28:28 -0400
Message-id: <49E8CA4C.1050409@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Christopher Menzel wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2009, at 12:58 PM, Ryan Kohl wrote:
>> Azamat seems to be right - an ad hominem argument would be of the  
>> form "Statement X is true/false because person Y said Z"
> Or "did Z" or "is a Republican" or ....  Basically, any attempt to  
> suggest Y's assertion is false by attacking Y's character or  
> questioning Y's motives is an ad hominem argument.  Also, I'd say that  
> you only want "false", rather than "true/false" above; an argument  
> that appeals to what Y said or did as a reason for the *truth* of X is  
> usually a so-called "appeal to authority".  Would you agree, Ryan?
Makes sense - since 'ad hominem argument' and 'ad hominem attack' are 
usually used synonymously, I'd be tempted to go with your distinction.  
Although, I wonder about these two (terrible) arguments:    (01)

"The iPhone is great" is true because Pat Hayes is a Republican who 
hates Apple Computers.
"The iPhone is terrible" is false because Pat Hayes is a Republican who 
hates Apple Computers.    (02)

In this case, it seems that the distinction is not whether X is true or 
false, but rather whether Y agrees with the truth valuation of X in the 
argument.  That is, I'd argue that both these statements are ad hominem 
-Ryan    (03)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (04)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>