have the courage of a Christopher Hitchens- whether you agree with him
or not. Women tend to be brooders or manipulators- or both- so it will
be interesting to see how "democracy" shakes up the current arenas of
protest, etc. They may be cutting off their noses to spite their faces
in the long run. We'll see...or I'll be dead...
On Dec 17, 4:00 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have rules on ad hominem and such in here. It's only one example
> of an "ad" and in general such stuff is regarded as fallacy. More
> recent work on argument tends to say we need to recognise what kind of
> argument we are in as the rules vary in different forms. One form of
> argument is called eristic and its aim is to reveal deep divisions. Ad
> hom may be allowable in that. I'm writing a paper for a conference
> based on the notion that religion has a deep and generally malevolent
> influence in human behaviour - which has an implicit ad hom - that
> general religious stuff is the province of a kind of cowardice (there
> are lots of examples from the other side of course - such as atheists
> being immoral).
> The main book I've been reading is by Walton (below) and a digest
> might be as follows:
>
> Dialogue types:
> Dialogue Type Initial Situation Participant's Goal Goal of Dialogue
> Persuasion Conflict of Opinion Persuade Other Party Resolve Issue
> Inquiry Need to Have Proof Verify Evidence Prove Hypothesis
> Discovery Need for Explanation Find a Hypothesis Support Hypothesis
> Negotiation Conflict of Interests Secure Interests Settle Issue
> Information Need Information Acquire Information Exchange Information
> Deliberation Practical Choice Fit Goals and Actions Decide What to Do
> Eristic Personal Conflict Attack an Opponent Reveal Deep Conflict
>
> What informal logic is seeking to explain and use:
> 1.an account of the principles of communication which argumentative
> exchange depends upon;
> 2. a distinction between different kinds of dialogue in which argument
> may occur, and the ways in which they determine 3.appropriate and
> inappropriate moves in argumentation (e.g. the difference between
> scientific discussion and negotiation);
> 4. an account of logical consequence, which explains when it can be
> said (and what it means to say) that some claim (or attitude) is a
> logical consequence of another;
> 5. a typology of argument which provides a framework of argument and
> analysis by indentifying the basic types of argument that need to be
> distinguished (deductivism is monistic, hence one of the simplest
> typologies; others will distinguish between fundamentally different
> kinds of argument);
> 6. an account of good argument which specifies general criteria for
> deductive, inductive, and conductive arguments;
> definitions of positive argument schema which define good patterns of
> reasoning (reasonable appeals to authority, reasonable attacks against
> the person; etc.);
> 7. some theoretical account of fallacies and the role they can (and
> cannot) play in understanding and assessing informal arguments;
> 8. an account of the role that audience (pathos) and ethos and other
> rhetorical notions should play in analysing and assessing argument;
> 9. an explanation of the dialectical obligations that attach to
> arguments in particular kinds of contexts.
>
> Walton, Douglas N., 2007. Dialog Theory for Critical Argumentation,
> Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
>
> What I'm seeking to establish is that economics and economic behaviour
> as we have it is a form of religious madness and uses religious
> coercion to get us to play its games. I actually believe this but
> want to do more than just assert the position. I'm not concerned to
> dismiss religion but rather demonstrate the dangerous madness of
> "economics" as a religious practice and threat to democracy
>
> In a crude sense one must bow to religious madness to take part in its
> fellowship. My contention is that economics works in the same way -
> under the maths belief in talking snakes is implied. The driving
> question is what a scientific economics might be and how this might be
> a moral matter because truth dialogue in science is not value-free but
> moral. In the context of history, religion has often been concerned
> with economics and particularly freedom from debt. What I'm searching
> for is something that breaks religion and politics from the dominance
> of power-interests and perhaps rediscovers more reasonable
> spirituality.
>
> It would help if I could build a truth-pattern analyser! Comments
> appreciated. Judging on the current draft I don't know what I'm
> talking about yet!
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário