Personal criticisms and logical fallacies
howe.steven at gmail.com
Wed Feb 10 08:06:24 CET 2010
Really, is this a relevant topic on a program mail list? You guys need
to get a room and start discussing angel counts on pinheads under the
On 02/09/2010 10:51 PM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:38:50 +0100
> "Alf P. Steinbach"<alfps at start.no> wrote:
>> However, although in this particular case the Ad Hominems constituted logical
>> fallacies, not all Ad Hominems are logical fallacies.
> Yes they are. Using the reputation of someone to prove or disprove
> their claims is a logical fallacy.
>> For example, if a person is a chronic liar, has a known history of lying, then
>> that can have a strong bearing on whether the person's claims -- technical or
>> about other persons -- should be seriously considered.
> Yes but it's still a fallacy. Taking the author's history into account
> may be valid for deciding that further investigation is warranted but by
> itself it does not prove anything about the claims. Suggesting that it
> does is fallacious.
> "Bill is a liar therefore his statement is false" is a fallacy. "Bill
> is a liar so take his claims with a grain of salt" is not.
> There is another case. "Bill never tells the truth therefore his
> claim is wrong" is not an ad hominem fallacy. It's a sylogism. It may
> or may not be correct but if the first statement is true (Bill always
> lies) then the the conclusion is true.
More information about the Python-list