At 11:20 AM 12/1/00 -0600, you wrote:
>Ad hominem seeks to
>discredit the person arguing rather than the argument. Leftists, rightists,
>feminists, and many others seem to have a particular fondness for this. You
>could probably amass a substantial collection of them by just combing
>through a wee
l-known
iconoclast in the ETS AP/IB forums!
norm
-Original Message-
From: Charles Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 12:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:5231] Re: A zillion is too many! (the argument method)
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/01/00 10:47
Besides, whatever Marx says is necessarily true, or necessarily, whatever
Marx says is true, however one reads the scope of that "necessarily." --jks
>
>CB: When this philosopher says "prove with evidence" , isn't s/he using an
>analogy from jurisprudence ? What about the problems of hearsay wh
cations used for hard science "truths".
i don't mind one bit admitting my axioms! i just wish other people would do
the same. true, more would "perish" rather than "publish", but that ain't
all bad, is it?
norm
-Original Message-
From: Ken Hanly [m
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/01/00 10:47AM >>>
5. use historical and/or current evidence (facts) to prove theorems;
6. NOT use "laws of history", and "argumenta ad hominem" ("Smith says...",
Marx says " ) to "prove" theorems;
((
CB: When this philosopher says "prove with evidence" , i
man S NSSC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 9:47 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:5207] A zillion is too many! (the argument method)
> i'll be using philosophical tools in that i'll be subjecting the authors
> (and myself) to the axiomatic me
i'll be using philosophical tools in that i'll be subjecting the authors
(and myself) to the axiomatic method of evaluating arguments (the "rules of
reason"):
1. state all overt and divulge all covert ethical (prescriptive) axioms;
2. state all overt and divulge all covert knowledge (descriptive
