| |
G4EBT > ENERGY 22.06.05 13:23l 204 Lines 7253 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 6E0031G4EBT
Read: GUEST OE7FMI
Subj: Re: All Previous Posts. Pt.3
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0SIF<DB0EA<DB0RES<ON0AR<GB7FCR
Sent: 050622/1013Z @:GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU #:54267 [Blackpool] FBB-7.03a $:6E0031G4
From: G4EBT@GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU
To : ENERGY@WW
G'Day possums,
Dick, VK3ABK wrote:-
> Hello (again!) Sci-Fiers.
Sci-Fiers?
You risk falling into the trap (as do I), of a "logical fallacy",
endemic on packet, known as "argumentum ad hominem".
Namely, seeking to ridicule and discredit - if only by mild rebuke and
innuendo, those whose views don't concur with your own. (Going for the
player - not the ball).
I'll try to explain:
>"Sci fi".
Inference: Global warming = science fiction - not science "faction".
There's "increasingly compelling evidence" to suggest otherwise.
(Not my words - the G8 summit agenda).
>"Serialised Saga of global doom".
It's not a "saga" - it's a debate. Participation in which is optional.
Can you adduce scientific evidence from creditable sources to de-bunk
global warming and inform the debate?
>"Fire my last shot"
Inference: Opposing sides are attacking each other in a battle for
supremacy, rather engaging in a sensible debate on an important
issue. Most of what I've seen on both sides has been well-written
and non-combative. Let's be thankful for that.
>"Whack with a blunt instrument"
The pen is mightier than the sword and every bit as sharp:-)
>"The recent diatribe"
Inference: Not a sensible debate, just nonsensical waffle.
>from some of the 'Internet trawling brigade',
Inference: The internet is not a useful source of information, and
those who use it as a reference source therefore have nothing of value
to add to the debate.
Where do we turn to then - packet pundits?
>who can be selective in their reporting of 'facts'
Inference: "Facts" expressed by the "internet trawling brigade", aren't
facts at all - they're just one-sided opinions dressed up as "facts".
>"has returned us to the bad old days of name calling and insults which
>turned some of us off packet corresponding".
Your remarks lack subtlety and are clear in their intent. I view them
with incredulity, as an attempt to claim the moral high ground. (Some
of us have long memories and large hard drives. (Caution - banana skins!).
If we're going to get "picky" might I suggest, as kindly as I can, that if
you re-visit some of your own statements, you may - on sober reflection,
conclude that some come perilously to falling within that category, (as
might we all)?
>The bulletin from M5WJF (no name or sign-off) who seems to be getting a
>bit too serious about his opinions on climate change.
"No name or sign-off" further implies criticism to undermine M5WJF. He's
a long-term user of packet as are you, and is well respected. He puts out
well-written, thought provoking bulletins on a wide range of topics and he
responds to personal attacks with dignity and restraint, if at all.
He's treating a serious subject in a serious way. Flippancy and levity
have their place, but not, I'd suggest, on matters such as this.
I'm surprised you didn't know his name. True, he omitted it in at least
one of his bulls, but hey, if we're talking about tolerance, and avoidance
of "name calling" is it worthy to take a dig at him for leaving his name
off? I don't think so.
>I may have upset him when I suggested that environmental scientists wear
>beards,
I doubt it - he seems immune to flame-baiting and trolling. He's level
headed, even-tempered, and slow to take offence. Just the sort of guy we
need on packet don't you think?
You do, however, seem to be aiming to discredit and ridicule scientists
(and by implication their research) by stereotyping them as bearded nerds
who ought to get out more instead of spending their lives bottle shaking
in labs, only to reach what you consider to be erroneous conclusions.
>and possibly he has done.
Don't think so.
>But it does seem that those who are most opinionated about 'climate
>change', (I use the current modification of "global warming" that was
>originally thrust upon us by 'experts'
Again, inverted commas used as argumentum ad hominem.
(IE "expert" being the antonym of an expert).
"Global Warming" (not climate change) is on the agenda of the forthcoming
G8 Gleneagles summit - it hasn't so much been thrust upon us by 'experts'
as adopted by scientists worldwide.
>need to have some form of distinction, be it a beard or wave placards and
>march in protest, or even invade property and often cause damage.
There you go again:
Inferences:
i) "We need to be protected from these tree-hugging greeny loonies".
ii) Peaceful protest to highlight their sincere concerns is wrong.
iii) That protesters "often" (not occasionally) cause damage.
(There are criminal sanctions to deal with them when they do).
The real damage is caused not by protesters, but by pollution,
deforestation, extractive industries, and wasteful use of energy,
particularly fossil fuels.
That isn't occasional or often, its endemic, relentless, and in
no small measure due politicians pursuing short-term agendas
under pressure from powerful commercial interests.
The following info came off packet in its hey-day - not off the net
so I assume it's ok to quote it:
>Argumentum ad Hominem Translation:
>"Argument against the man" (Latin)
>Subfallacy: Abusive ad hominem:
>Occurs when an attack on the character or other irrelevant personal
>qualities of the opposition such as appearance is offered as evidence
>against their position.
(EG: Beards, placards etc).
>"Such attacks are often effective distractions ("red herrings"), because
>opponents feel it necessary to defend themselves, thus being distracted
>from the topic of the debate".
That's what I'm doing here. Instead of debating the core issues of global
warming, being side-tracked by red-herrings, but I do so in the knowledge
of the "mind game" that's going on.
>Circumstantial Ad Hominem:
>Where some irrelevant personal circumstance surrounding the opponent is
>offered as evidence against the opponent's position. This fallacy is
often >introduced by phrases such as: "Of course, that's what you'd expect
him to >say."
EG: "After all, M5WJF doesn't even give his name, so how are we to take
him seriously?".
> But, what I was about to do was credit Wayne with another 'thumping'
> bulletin and ask for further comment.
Well that's good news!
> Wayne included in his last reply to me...
> "Also if I felt that you were a plonker, I'd have told you within an
> SP."
>I don't know what a "plonker" is, but I hope it isn't one of the crude
>words seen on European programs on our SBS (Subversive Broadcasting
>Service) television channel subtitles.
Close, but no cigar.
>'Please explain', Wayne.
Separate topic - etymology. Worth a separate bulletin.
I hope this "diatribe" doesn't sound too unkind. Inevitably it will seem
like a personal attack on Dick, but it's "Catch 22" - either accept the
whole of his premise, or put an alternative view.
I've tried to do that, as politely as I can, but I've probably failed.
It's inevitable when there's a divergence of opinion as to where the
problem lies. "No worries" as they say in some parts:-)
Now, can we get back to sensible debate or is that too much to ask?
73 - David, G4EBT @ GB7FCR
Message timed: 09:36 on 2005-Jun-22
Message sent using WinPack-Telnet V6.70
(Registered).
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
