ridicule is not good science

[mooeypoo]

you cannot tell me we are not discussing its effects on society and then give only examples such as tv shows and cold fusion, where the only benefit of ridicule is changing societys viewpoints.

Wait, I think we lost one another at some point. I am not saying we're not discussing the effects on society -- I'm saying we're not discussing dry laws.

 

I gave those examples to show how ridicule can affect society *positively*. To make a point that there *are* occasions where ridicule is useful and productive. You are the one who made the point about laws and society following rules, and that's where I pointed out the discussion wasn't about those.

 

 

I think we're in more agreement than you think I don't think ridicule should be used in a scientific debate. In fact, I see very little use for it in any sort of debate at all, because debates are supposed to have the goal of mutually listening and discussing with one another, and ridicule serves for the complete opposite.

 

But I just don't think that ridicule is completely and utterly not beneficial, ever. That's the point I was trying to make.

 

 

I think it's less about the audience and more about the goal. The audience in this form might be the same that watches Jon Stewart and enjoys it. But the goal of Jon Stewart's show is completely different than the goal of this forum.

 

Different approaches for different goals, and different tools for different occasions.

 

See what I mean?

 

~mooey

[iNow]

The impression I get, though, is that while I might consider your approach has room, just perhaps not everywhere, you seem to think your approach should be used everywhere.

That's not what I think, and my posts throughout this site provide ample evidence to prove it. There's a time and a place. That is where the disagreement appears to reside here.

 

You and team think the time and place I've chosen was the wrong one, and that I overstepped some crazy important boundary by saying he was a hypocrite instead of pedantically stating his position was hypocritical. I've argued that in this context it was obvious and I felt not worth the extra effort. Looking back, this was obviously a poor choice, as I've put far more effort into battling back you guys making mountains out of molehills than I saved by using a rhetorical shorthand.

 

We will have to agree to disagree, but it's little more than personal opinion and arbitrary subjective preference. You have failed to convince me that yours is in any way better than mine.

 

You give me the impression that instead of saying "this is my opinion vs yours" you're saying "this is my opinion and it's right".

They're not mutually exclusive. We often have different opinions. Mine is often right. If it wasn't, I'd hold a different opinion. If I'm wrong, and you make a quality argument which illuminates this for me, then I'll change my opinion. In this thread, you've piled assumption upon assumption and generalization upon generalization all because I said, "Hypocrite." That was not an ad hom. It was a signal of my disgust for the PC police.

 

 

 

 

 

You have just proven that you won't make a step back on your argumentation just because that's the way you are and you will never change. That is exactly what you accuse people that you are ready to ridiculize.

Now you are the ridicule.

 

------------------

Of course I ment "your argument is ridicule" but you agreed previously that it doesn't matter, it's about the same.

Didn't you?

Can you please state this again another way? I'm not able to parse it in its current form, and hence am unable to respond.

[Appolinaria]

ok ridicule has some positives on society. these are slim compared to the negatives. ridicule isnt beneficial to science or society, overall.

 

if the negatives outweigh the positives, it cannot be argued as useful.

 

laws are put in place to ensure that a negative outcome isnt achieved.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Appolinaria

[iNow]

.

 

 

But I just don't think that ridicule is completely and utterly not beneficial, ever. That's the point I was trying to make.

This was not obvious from your previous comments, but yet again we agree.

 

 

Different approaches for different goals, and different tools for different occasions.

Precisely, and why do you feel you have authority to dictate which tools I wield in my craft? Why must my goals be equal to yours? I'll give you a hint. They don't, and that seems to be one of the major issues here.

 

ok ridicule has some positives on society. these are slim compared to the negatives. ridicule isnt beneficial to science or society, overall.

Just because you keep repeating an invalid assertion doesn't mean it suddenly becomes more valid.

 

What you've said above is your personal preference, but hardly some immutable fact. I think there are many needs for ridicule, and some of those have already been quite clearly articulated here in this thread. It's fine if you choose to dismiss those needs and reasons, but that does not accurately lead to the conclusion that none exist.

 

But the amount of evidence that proves the tool of ridicule has proven beneficial is slim.

 

No, ridicule can quite literally save lives.

 

 

[baric]

How I wish this was true. It might be in general, but not all scientists are 'smarter' than the average person. Scientists might be more didactic, more analytic, more mathematical -- but I wouldn't say they're generally "smarter".

 

Perhaps we are simply quibbling over a semantic definition of "smart". I am not talking about some innate, inborn characteristic. I am talking about environmental characteristics like rationality (learned), academics (learned), and passion for their field of study.

 

These things combined make scientists, as a group, the undisputed experts in their fields of knowledge. They are SMARTER than those whose desires and efforts took them into other fields.

 

We can all condescend everyone as much as we want, but the bottom line is that rarely are people born science-ready. I was always curious about the universe, so in that aspect, I was "a skeptic" from a young age. Was I a scientist?

 

Of course not. "Scientist" is a profession. Being a skeptic is certainly a valuable, perhaps indispensable, prerequisite for being a good scientist. But that alone does not make you one.

 

And I was ridiculed by some science-minded folk, mainly online, but also off; I knew that I'm not stupid, and I knew I wanted to understand what's going on, but instead of explaining to me *why* my methods lead to the wrong answer, people ridiculed -- so instead of considering they might have a point, I thought they're pompous asses that are afraid of change.

 

Ridiculing those less able is symptom of insecurity, an unfortunate characteristic of human personality. It occurs in ALL professions, and human scientists are no more immune to that personality flaw than anyone else.

 

You need to recognize it as a flaw of the ridiculer, not you, and shrug it off. All that ultimately matters in science is the pursuit of knowledge.

Edited November 16, 2011 by baric

[mooeypoo]

That's not what I think, and my posts throughout this site provide ample evidence to prove it. There's a time and a place. That is where the disagreement appears to reside here.

iNow, I'm not trying to attack you. The point is, however, that some of what you're posting doesn't come off the way you seem to wish it to come off. When I was in public-speaking class, our professor always reminded us of the age-old "rule" of communication: If your audience misunderstands what you say, the fault is with you, not with them.

 

Since I'm not the only one that pointed out you come off the way I said you do, maybe you should consider re-reading your posts, or re-assessing what you use to convey your attitude, because it comes off differently than what you intend it.

 

Arguing that I'm the idiot who didn't read what you wrote correctly isn't really helping.

 

You and team think the time and place I've chosen was the wrong one, and that I overstepped some crazy important boundary by saying he was a hypocrite instead of pedantically stating his position was hypocritical. I've argued that in this context it was obvious and I felt not worth the extra effort. Looking back, this was obviously a poor choice, as I've put far more effort into battling back you guys making mountains out of molehills than I saved by using a rhetorical shorthand.

 

I and "team" separate two things: your opinion about how to post, and your actions when you post. Your opinions are fine, and while we might agree or disagree, they're yours and you are entitled to have them.

 

Your actions are what we respond to as staff. You can disagree with our rules, but you cannot just disregard them bcause you disagree with them. With due respect, iNow, no one is trying to change you, we're trying to change how you *act* in this forum. Why? Because that's what the rules are. Disregarding them will not change them.

 

When a hotel tells you not to have a 50-person party in your room, they don't care about changing who you are. They are telling you what you are and are not allowed to do in their property. When we tell you to stop being obnoxious, we don't care to change who you are, we are letting you know what is and isn't acceptable here.

 

It's your choice if you wish to rent a hotel room in light of their rules. And it's your choice to post here in light of our rules.

 

 

We will have to agree to disagree, but it's little more than personal opinion and arbitrary subjective preference. You have failed to convince me that yours is in any way better than mine.

I don't feel the need to convince you of that, because it's irrelevant. I heard your side, and I disagree, and my attempts to explain why were not meant to sway you my way, they were meant to explain my views, no more, no less.

 

I don't argue to win.

 

They're not mutually exclusive. We often have different opinions. Mine is often right. If it wasn't, I'd hold a different opinion. If I'm wrong, and you make a quality argument which illuminates this for me, then I'll change my opinion. In this thread, you've piled assumption upon assumption and generalization upon generalization all because I said, "Hypocrite." That was not an ad hom. It was a signal of my disgust for the PC police.

You seem to be so proud in how much you are changing your opinion if you're wrong, but your attitude doesn't allow for people to convince you that you're wrong, iNow. Quite honestly, every time I post an answer to you, I feel like I need to double-triple-quadruple check every word I make (especially since English is not my main language) so that I can make my point without being "pwned" for minor points.

 

You tend to ignore the main point, iNow, and you do that often, and when you do that, people get tired of arguing with you, which makes it so that people give up on *trying* to show you how much you might be wrong.

 

It's very convenient staying right by bullying people to stop arguing with you. It's not quite as "enlightened", though, is it.

 

 

~mooey

 

ok ridicule has some positives on society. these are slim compared to the negatives. ridicule isnt beneficial to science or society, overall.

 

I disagree. A whole section of art is done by mocking and ridicule and is EXTREMELY beneficial to society. Comic strips in news papers fit that, as well as comedy clubs, movies, stories, books, and radio shows.

 

Unless you provide evidence that ridicule has more negative than positive in society, I'll have to maintain my strong disagreement with that, and hence with the rest of your post and maintain that ridicule *can* be useful. Quite often, even.

 

Like anything, though, it should probably benefit from moderation, and where and when to be used, like anything.

 

~mooey

[kitkat]

iNow, I'm not trying to attack you. The point is, however, that some of what you're posting doesn't come off the way you seem to wish it to come off. When I was in public-speaking class, our professor always reminded us of the age-old "rule" of communication: If your audience misunderstands what you say, the fault is with you, not with them.

 

Since I'm not the only one that pointed out you come off the way I said you do, maybe you should consider re-reading your posts, or re-assessing what you use to convey your attitude, because it comes off differently than what you intend it.

 

Arguing that I'm the idiot who didn't read what you wrote correctly isn't really helping.

 

 

 

I and "team" separate two things: your opinion about how to post, and your actions when you post. Your opinions are fine, and while we might agree or disagree, they're yours and you are entitled to have them.

 

Your actions are what we respond to as staff. You can disagree with our rules, but you cannot just disregard them bcause you disagree with them. With due respect, iNow, no one is trying to change you, we're trying to change how you *act* in this forum. Why? Because that's what the rules are. Disregarding them will not change them.

 

When a hotel tells you not to have a 50-person party in your room, they don't care about changing who you are. They are telling you what you are and are not allowed to do in their property. When we tell you to stop being obnoxious, we don't care to change who you are, we are letting you know what is and isn't acceptable here.

 

It's your choice if you wish to rent a hotel room in light of their rules. And it's your choice to post here in light of our rules.

 

 

 

I don't feel the need to convince you of that, because it's irrelevant. I heard your side, and I disagree, and my attempts to explain why were not meant to sway you my way, they were meant to explain my views, no more, no less.

 

I don't argue to win.

 

 

You seem to be so proud in how much you are changing your opinion if you're wrong, but your attitude doesn't allow for people to convince you that you're wrong, iNow. Quite honestly, every time I post an answer to you, I feel like I need to double-triple-quadruple check every word I make (especially since English is not my main language) so that I can make my point without being "pwned" for minor points.

 

You tend to ignore the main point, iNow, and you do that often, and when you do that, people get tired of arguing with you, which makes it so that people give up on *trying* to show you how much you might be wrong.

 

It's very convenient staying right by bullying people to stop arguing with you. It's not quite as "enlightened", though, is it.

 

 

~mooey

 

 

 

I disagree. A whole section of art is done by mocking and ridicule and is EXTREMELY beneficial to society. Comic strips in news papers fit that, as well as comedy clubs, movies, stories, books, and radio shows.

 

Unless you provide evidence that ridicule has more negative than positive in society, I'll have to maintain my strong disagreement with that, and hence with the rest of your post and maintain that ridicule *can* be useful. Quite often, even.

 

Like anything, though, it should probably benefit from moderation, and where and when to be used, like anything.

 

~mooey

 

 

Mooeypoo, I definitely prefer your approach in responding to people's questions and ideas in this forum. I agree that ridicule from scientists doesn't create an environment where ideas can be freely expressed. The attitude of some members here who actually believe that ridiculing people gives the impression that they are smart when it is the complete opposite of how people actuallly think of them is not based on reality. I wish there were more people that think like you do, mooeypoo, the number of people that have an interest in science would increase for this forum and it would make it a successful website.

[Appolinaria]

Mooeypoo, I definitely prefer your approach in responding to people's questions and ideas in this forum. I agree that ridicule from scientists doesn't create an environment where ideas can be freely expressed. The attitude of some members here who actually believe that ridiculing people gives the impression that they are smart when it is the complete opposite of how people actuallly think of them is not based on reality. I wish there were more people that think like you do, mooeypoo, the number of people that have an interest in science would increase for this forum and it would make it a successful website.

 

agreed.

[Ophiolite]

If they've demonstrated their ridiculousness to such a point, when you attack them yourself you are either redundant, self-serving or you don't trust in your peer's ability to see what should be obvious.

Redundancy is a key part of communication. Repetition helps ensure delivery of the message.

Nearly everything I do is self-serving. Is this unique?

I trust the ability of peers to identify stupidity. I know that less informed persons may need some guidance in that area. In certain circumstances ridicule can provide that guidance.

 

 

The essential point of disagreement appears to me to be this. Some members, myself and inow included, believe that ridicule is a valid technique in some cicumstances. Others disagree, yet careful examination of some posts reveals that some of the opposed members use implied ridicule.

 

It seems it would be acceptable to call such behaviour hypocritical, but in an outburst of nitpicking we could not call the person indulging in such behaviour a hypocrite. Now that is ridiculous.

 

Since I have now pointed out it is ridiculous am I guilty of ridiculing? Should I be cenusred? Why not? The path here has always been to blame the person who vigorously and succinctly points out acts and thoughts of stupidity, rather than condemn the stupidity. Those or the rules - fine - just don't ask me to like them.

Edited November 17, 2011 by Ophiolite

[imatfaal]

Mooeypoo, I definitely prefer your approach in responding to people's questions and ideas in this forum. I agree that ridicule from scientists doesn't create an environment where ideas can be freely expressed.

An idea that is ridiculed without being first discussed and its flaws explained is lost and the proponent is discouraged from tendering new thoughts - and that cannot be a good thing; but I have not seen anyone stating immediate and personal mockery is a good thing.

 

The attitude of some members here who actually believe that ridiculing people gives the impression that they are smart when it is the complete opposite of how people actuallly think of them is not based on reality.

That's a little insulting. No one likes the disapproval of their peers and many seek approbation - but to impute motives of self-aggrandisement to those who use ridicule, when this thread is full of claims of other justification, is uncalled for and a slight.

 

I wish there were more people that think like you do, mooeypoo, the number of people that have an interest in science would increase for this forum and it would make it a successful website.

[Ophiolite]

No, its the other way round. Obviously you have never followed a presentation from creationists. If you take some time enduring this, you will understand that derision and ridicule is their most effective weapon. They don't use science, they use arguments based on "common sense" like Paley's watch saying "yoho scientists wake up, look around you we are more complicated than a watch so it proves that blahblahblah!" and that's it. Not that I agree with them but you must learn to know your ennemy.

You must know that science has nothing to do with "common sense" and that in many case science is exactly the contrary of "common sense". Look at Newton's laws of motion as a simple example.

I mean, as i stated before, the use of ridicule is a weapon of the ignorant. When you use it you stop acting like a scientist.

You have completely ignored the fact that inow - to whom you were responding - and I and others have explicitly said, repeatedly, that ridicule is the final step and even then not necessarily appropriate in all instances. Here you are comparing that approach to the use of ridicule as an integral part of the debate process, invoked from the beginning. These are two completely different beasts. Equating them as you have done is, frankly, ridiculous. In equating them you have ridiculed yourself, something I would not contemplate doing until much later in our interchange, if at all.

[michel123456]

You have completely ignored the fact that inow - to whom you were responding - and I and others have explicitly said, repeatedly, that ridicule is the final step and even then not necessarily appropriate in all instances. Here you are comparing that approach to the use of ridicule as an integral part of the debate process, invoked from the beginning. These are two completely different beasts. Equating them as you have done is, frankly, ridiculous. In equating them you have ridiculed yourself, something I would not contemplate doing until much later in our interchange, if at all.

 

Every action has equal and opposite reaction.

Even in argumentation.

 

I'll stick to my statement.

the use of ridicule is a weapon of the ignorant. When you use it you stop acting like a scientist.

Edited November 17, 2011 by michel123456

[kitkat]

Every action has equal and opposite reaction.

Even in argumentation.

 

I'll stick to my statement.

 

 

And I love that statement!

[iNow]

The essential point of disagreement appears to me to be this. Some members, myself and inow included, believe that ridicule is a valid technique in some cicumstances. Others disagree, yet careful examination of some posts reveals that some of the opposed members use implied ridicule.

 

It seems it would be acceptable to call such behaviour hypocritical, but in an outburst of nitpicking we could not call the person indulging in such behaviour a hypocrite. Now that is ridiculous.

QFT.

 

I appreciate someone finally stepping in and at least attempting to stop the public lynching which was taking place.

[Phi for All]

Redundancy is a key part of communication. Repetition helps ensure delivery of the message.

I concede this point. It is plain to me that some things need to be repeated in order to finally break through the sheer volume of clutter and pre-conceived stances.

 

The essential point of disagreement appears to me to be this. Some members, myself and inow included, believe that ridicule is a valid technique in some cicumstances. Others disagree, yet careful examination of some posts reveals that some of the opposed members use implied ridicule.

You forgot the third group, those who agree that ridicule is a valid tool but disagree when it is used to attack personally, rather than ridiculing an idea.

 

It seems it would be acceptable to call such behaviour hypocritical, but in an outburst of nitpicking we could not call the person indulging in such behaviour a hypocrite. Now that is ridiculous.

Here again I fear I must again resort to redundancy again. The definitions of the various words used to attack someone personally almost always carry examples where the behavior is inseparable from the person. An asshole is incessantly irritating and contemptible, a moron consistently makes stupid choices, a hypocrite is like the non-voter who complains about elected officials, an idiot is a stupid or mentally handicapped person. Calling someone by these names automatically impugns their whole character.

 

iNow claims he's not using these attacks fallaciously because they're just observations and not being used against an argument, but this is a discussion board and virtually everything can be said to be an argument about one thing or another. You (Ophiolite) had made a point about ridicule being a valid last resort choice. Then kitkat argued that your opinion came from a closed-minded, hidebound point of view and therefore couldn't reflect an up-to-date commentary on the subject. That's when iNow remarked that kitkat couldn't take what he'd previously dished out and therefore was a hypocrite. Isn't that an observation AND an argument against kitkat's statement? Wasn't the comment being used to refute kitkat's stance as being flawed? Isn't it therefore an ad hominem attack, aimed at the person instead of his hypocritical arguments?

 

We have the ability to distinguish between a person and their ideas. We have the power of language which gives us the means to further refine that ability. With that power comes the responsibility to use it wisely. We know that attacking a person causes defenses that make discussion less productive and meaningful. We know that attacking an idea is the right (even the duty) of the skeptic when we have evidence the idea is flawed.

 

To me it seems painfully clear that this is a viable answer to those who rail against critical judgment or claim that great ideas are lost to ridicule. Maybe the ideas were lost because it was the originator who was ridiculed instead of the idea. Maybe now that we have the scientific method and understand how weak fallacious logic is, we can modify the way we argue so we're very clear about what is worthy of ridicule instead of who.

[mooeypoo]

QFT.

 

I appreciate someone finally stepping in and at least attempting to stop the public lynching which was taking place.

 

Lynching? Seriously, iNow? I wrote a whole post explaining to you what the problem is, in plain language and polite text, one that answers your previous posts and makes a point of my perceptions (which seems that are not my own alone) and you claim lynching? I explained how this isn't about ridicule, but about consistent ridicule. I even made the points throughout the thread that there *is* place for ridicule at some cases.

 

 

I'm disappointed, iNow. You were always one of the most articulate members in this forum, regardless of our disagreements about attitude, and I usually found your posts to the point and thoughtful. We've had these arguments before, and you know that relatively speaking, I'm "on your side" in many points you make.

 

The one time I lay out my rationale in a clear post, and you call it lynching?

 

I'm not even sure how to respond to that other than repeat my point that it's incredibly hard to conduct a rational argument with you without being "pwned" or, as it seemed, accused of lynching.

 

C'mon.

 

~mooey

[swansont]

as i stated before, the use of ridicule is a weapon of the ignorant. When you use it you stop acting like a scientist.

 

I think one issue here is that the second statement is disconnected from the first. You may stop being a scientist (or acting as one), but that road may have ended long before the use of ridicule. Context matters. IMO, there are times that outrageous statements invite ridicule. Why should a rule only apply to half of the people in a discussion?

 

Another issue is the logical fallacy implied by the first statement: ignorant people use ridicule, even if all ignorant people use ridicule, does not imply that all use of ridicule is by the ignorant. "Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan." For it not to be a fallacy, the statement has to be that only ignorant people use ridicule.*

 

*It is left as an exercise to determine if quoting Monty Python is ridicule and whether I am ignorant.

[iNow]

The one time I lay out my rationale in a clear post, and you call it lynching?

Sorry, moo. It was not my intention to single you out in any way. Please note that. Doesn't change my sense that you guys are way over-blowing this issue.

[mooeypoo]

Sorry, moo. It was not my intention to single you out in any way. Please note that. Doesn't change my sense that you guys are way over-blowing this issue.

 

And I definitely didn't mean to make it look like I single you out. This also isn't the first time we have a discussion about ridicule on the forums. I think it's a valid question. Case in point: There's a huge huge debate about this within the "Atheist community" about Hitchens/Dawkins attitudes vs others, and this debate is going on from inside the camp. This is not something we're likely to just solve with a few posts and strong points.

 

I do see ridicule as something that can be beneficial in certain cases.

I do not see where it's beneficial in a *scientific* debate; not because of the people, but because of the goals of such debates.

People may, of course, disagree with me.

 

People should, however, choose the media that applies to their attitude. I, for instance, read RDF forums, but I don't participate; I think there's a huge benefit to having Richard Dawkins and his attitude and books, and I (mostly) enjoy reading what he says. Same with Hitchens. But I *personally* dislike using this attitude and participating in it. I am not advocating to close down those forums, I just don't use them.

 

Opinions are welcome, and different opinions are also welcome, but we should all take into account, also, taht despite disagreements, there are rules to every website. RDF rules are more lax on ridicule. In fact, they tend to encourage it. That's perfectly fine for their goals. SFN discourages ridicule and "outlaws" it. That should be perfectly fine too. It's a choice the forum staff and founders made, because this is the vision they saw for THIS *particular* forum.

 

 

 

What drives me crazy is when a really GOOD and VALID point is made in a scientific (or semi-pseudoscience) thread, but the tone is so full of ridicule that it's clearly only going to drive the other side into the defensive, rather than, perhaps, having the otehr side consider the strong and valid points.

 

I think that's a shame. I personally think we *can* change people's views, it's just not a quick thing. But if we push them to self-defense and closing themselves up, it won't happen.

 

That's my personal problem with over-using ridicule. I'm not saying there's no place for it in society. I'm not saying there's no place for it in some cases even in this forum, and i'm not saying I've never used it.

 

I'm saying there *are* cases where it's counter productive to the goal. And in this particular forum, because of the specific goal it has, those happen more often than where ridicule might be productive or called for.

 

That frustrates me as a poster, not just as staff.

 

~mooey

[Phi for All]

Sorry, moo. It was not my intention to single you out in any way. Please note that. Doesn't change my sense that you guys are way over-blowing this issue.

It's obviously important to us (us being the ridicule-the-ridiculous-idea-not-the-person crowd). I think doubly so because we're not so far apart in our stance. This isn't a lynching, it's the extra effort one uses when one sees a finish line in the near distance.

 

I think it would make this a better forum, make us better communicators and make our choices more supportable if we could arrive at consensus on the subject.

 

The only meaningful difference in our stances (I'm not including the group that sees no validity in ridicule) is that you draw no distinction between using a word that implies a constant behavior and separating such behavior from the actual person with a slightly modified set of words. We've shown there is a benefit in not causing unnecessary defensiveness but you've shown no benefit for your stance.

 

You claim the difference is one of "tone", but it's precision in terminology, something I believe you value. Why is it important elsewhere but not here?

 

When it can mean the difference between validating an argument as objective or leaving an opening for detractors to claim you are subjectively attacking someone's character, why do you insist on it?

 

You've always been a valued member here and you make it very hard to deal with trolls and flamers when you use some of the same attacks they use. Calling people names when it's their arguments that deserve it isn't "an objective statement of fact", it's transferring the characteristics of their idea onto them and attacking.

 

Could you at least try to shoot the gun out of their hand instead of just plugging them between the eyes, cowboy?

[DrRocket]

 

iNow claims he's not using these attacks fallaciously because they're just observations and not being used against an argument, but this is a discussion board and virtually everything can be said to be an argument about one thing or another. You (Ophiolite) had made a point about ridicule being a valid last resort choice. Then kitkat argued that your opinion came from a closed-minded, hidebound point of view and therefore couldn't reflect an up-to-date commentary on the subject. That's when iNow remarked that kitkat couldn't take what he'd previously dished out and therefore was a hypocrite. Isn't that an observation AND an argument against kitkat's statement? Wasn't the comment being used to refute kitkat's stance as being flawed? Isn't it therefore an ad hominem attack, aimed at the person instead of his hypocritical arguments?

 

It needs to be clearly stated that an ad hominem argument is one in which the validity of an assertion is questioned on the basis of some negative characterization of the proponent. It is not merely an insult. Thus "you are an idiot and therefore your statement is absurd" is an ad hominem argument, but "your statement is absurd and therefore you are an idiot" is an observation and an insult, but not an ad hominem argument.

 

Exactly the same logical issues arise when expert opinion is used -- only in this case the ad hominem perspective is adopted to lend credibility to an assertion because of the nature of the one who asserts.

 

In the case that you cite, it is kitkat who makes an ad hominem argument. iNow's statement was logically irrelevant, perhaps valid, and depending on kitkat's view of hypocrisy might be taken as pejorative, but not an ad hominem argument.

 

We have the ability to distinguish between a person and their ideas. We have the power of language which gives us the means to further refine that ability. With that power comes the responsibility to use it wisely. We know that attacking a person causes defenses that make discussion less productive and meaningful. We know that attacking an idea is the right (even the duty) of the skeptic when we have evidence the idea is flawed.

 

To me it seems painfully clear that this is a viable answer to those who rail against critical judgment or claim that great ideas are lost to ridicule. Maybe the ideas were lost because it was the originator who was ridiculed instead of the idea. Maybe now that we have the scientific method and understand how weak fallacious logic is, we can modify the way we argue so we're very clear about what is worthy of ridicule instead of who.

 

 

Note that while an ad hominem argument is not valid in the context of formal logic, it is not necessarily poor reasoning in the larger context. We engage in ad hominem reasoning every time that we request a citation from the peer reviewed literature, or cite an expert opinion.

 

In the modern environment in which the ability to publish, easily and widely, is afforded to anyone with a keyboard and internet connection it is in fact necessary to discriminate among those who publish. Life is just too short to spend time dissecting in detail the rantings of the numerous nut cases found today on the internet -- and science forums attract more than their fare share.

 

I know of no instances in which great ideas were lost to ridicule. Pythagoras may have received criticism when irrational numbers were discovered, but his ideas survived the death of the man. Einstein's was work, in the darkest days of the Reich was called "Jewish physics", but Einstein's ideas and reputation seem to have prevailed over those of his detractors. Valid ideas seem to always win out in the end.

 

But let's be realistic. Revolutionary valid new science never has and will not ever arise from the rantings of some delusional amateur in an internet science forum. The first step in doing research and developing radical new valid science is understanding what is already known, the basis of that knowledge and the limits of its applicability. That requires serious intense study. There is a reason why almost all research scientists have Ph.D. degrees.

 

I seem to observe that purveyors of tripe take any criticism of their ideas ortheir grasp of subjective matter as personal attacks. Thus criticism of ideas is interpreted erroneously as an ad hominem attack. I also note a tendancy for some to be more concerned with the "self esteem" of fringe posters than in content or intellectual honesty (note the degree to which positive and negative "reputation points" are cast on the basis ofsuch concerns rather than technical content). This goes to the point where requests for homework help that are in essence outright cheating are tolerated because "the professor should forsee this possibility". Sincere newbies deserve consideration and tolerance. But kid gloves are not for wackos, cheaters or even just lazy students.

 

The railing against ad hominem arguments by the lunatic fringe is simply a tactic used to promote nonsense, and an attempt to have absurdities given apparently serious consideration. In a venue without the mollifying influence provided by an academic environment and peer review, the risk of intellectual chaos promulgated by articulate and prolific lunatics is real (think Farsight or your favorite creationist). It is therefore expedient, and in fact necessary, to learn to discriminate between arguments and sources that are deserving of the expenditure of intellectual capital and tripe that should be dismissed out of hand, not even read fully. This is ad hominem reasoning at its most productive, and it is necessary for those who wish to learn real science in a finite lifetime.

[imatfaal]

Superb post DocRock

[Iggy]

It needs to be clearly stated that an ad hominem argument is one in which the validity of an assertion is questioned on the basis of some negative characterization of the proponent...

 

iNow's statement was... not an ad hominem argument.

I've seen this said more and more over the last few years but it's actually not true. Ad hominems are a substitution for a valid point in a debate, but it isn't necessary that the "validity of an assertion is questioned".

 

Poisoning the well, for example, happens before there is an assertion to refute and is a type of ad hominem. The type that iNow used is "tu quoque". Tu quoque is ad hominem.

 

The railing against ad hominem arguments by the lunatic fringe is simply a tactic used to promote nonsense, and an attempt to have absurdities given apparently serious consideration.

Ad hominem

[Appolinaria]

I think one issue here is that the second statement is disconnected from the first. You may stop being a scientist (or acting as one), but that road may have ended long before the use of ridicule. Context matters. IMO, there are times that outrageous statements invite ridicule. Why should a rule only apply to half of the people in a discussion?

 

Another issue is the logical fallacy implied by the first statement: ignorant people use ridicule, even if all ignorant people use ridicule, does not imply that all use of ridicule is by the ignorant. "Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan." For it not to be a fallacy, the statement has to be that only ignorant people use ridicule.*

 

*It is left as an exercise to determine if quoting Monty Python is ridicule and whether I am ignorant.

 

I do not understand this.

 

 

 

 

Michel said ridicule is a weapon of the ignorant. Meaning, commonly it is ignorant people who use ridicule.

 

I don't understand how this statement is a fallacy.

[DrRocket]

I do not understand this.

 

 

 

 

Michel said ridicule is a weapon of the ignorant. Meaning, commonly it is ignorant people who use ridicule.

 

I don't understand how this statement is a fallacy.

 

A fallacy is a breach of formal logic. An assertion is not a logical argument and cannot be a logical fallacy. An assertion can be fallacious (i.e. tending to deceive or mislead) but not a fallacy.

 

In the case that you cite the assertion is an unsubstantiated opinion, intended to convey the impresssion that those who ridicule are likely ignorant and therefore unworthy of consideration. It is in in fact a subtle form of an ad hominem attack.

 

 

Student (interrupting a lecture in which an equation is being bderived) : "Professor, I don't understand."

 

silence

 

more silence

 

Student: "Professor, aren't you going to answer my question ?"

 

Professor: "That was not a question."

 

 

The professor in the incident was P.A.M. Dirac. Anyone care to characterize Dirac as ignorant or unworthy of consideration ?

 

I've seen this said more and more over the last few years but it's actually not true. Ad hominems are a substitution for a valid point in a debate, but it isn't necessary that the "validity of an assertion is questioned".

 

 

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.^[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem