Replies are closed for this discussion.
Hey, I've taught logic. There's a difference between formal and verbal fallacies. A formally fallacious argument is permanently and irrevocably bad due to the very structure of the relationship of premises to conclusion.
In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. (source)
When I talk about OCD, I'm not using it to undermine your arguments, so it's not a fallacious form of ad hominem. I'm not even poisoning the well. I'm just noting that you seem helpless to not go overboard when you reply to someone. Instead of a succinct reply, we can all look forward to a term paper reply. You're free to do it, it just seems pretty silly and, to a degree pathetic, like the person who can't resist wiping doorknobs with disinfectant before opening a door.
Now if you want to talk about fallacious uses of ad hominems, what about painting anyone expressing any degree of skepticism over the IPCC's methods, analysis, and recommendations, as a "climate denier"? To be sure, there are climate deniers, but I've been referring to scientists, none of whom deny climate change, who don't like some aspect of the IPCC's methods, analysis, and recommendations. Cut it out.
There's nothing silly about giving a comprehensive reply to the rational seeming but meaningless ramblings of a new member who actually might learn a thing or two. OCD behaviour? Take a look at your own posts. Tea pot calling the kettle black.
Well, I guess we'll have to agree we see different things in my posts. I try to keep my replies as short and succinct as I can. I don't feel a compulsion to treat every single point the other party makes as a research project. This is just a discussion forum after all. There's little at stake. It's not like we're presenting our case in front of the Supreme Court.
Sometimes correlation is all you'll ever get. As yet, for example, we don't know the exact mechanism that makes cigarette smoke cause cancer in a percentage of smokers, and we also don't know why some smokers don't contract cancer.
Right. Many people smoke their whole lives and never get cancer. This is a fact, so to say that cigarette smoking causes cancer is misleading in my opinion.
Especially when you consider that other things cause cancer, the cause/ effect relationship is dubious.
Thanks for the reply. I disagree with your juxtaposition. I think that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I like many have not come across evidence that seems extraordinary.