Author
|
Topic: virus: Studying Ad Populem, was: ideohazard 1.1 (Read 2844 times) |
|
Kalkor
Magister
Gender: 
Posts: 109
Reputation: 6.78
Rate Kalkor
Kneading the swollen donkey...
 
  
|
 |
virus: Studying Ad Populem, was: ideohazard 1.1
« on: 2003-09-29 12:49:18 » |
 |
[Kalkor]
Massive amounts of the thread snipped, to focus on one recurring point I
keep seeing. Since we're in the hobby of studying memetics, I thought we'd
study this one logical fallacy a bit as it doesn't seem to get much
attention but is USED a lot in, for instance, advertising. Ad Populem.
Below I have quoted Hermit during this exchange. I would like to state that
the quotes were chosen by scanning through quickly until I found some
keywords. The object of this post is not to attack anyone, but to discuss
the finer points of peer review versus the Ad Populem fallacy.
The Ad Populem fallacy states that it is fallacious in argument to say
something like "everyone else agrees with him so you should too". So what
about saying something like "accepted approvingly only by people infested
with a similar political ideology. His work is not regarded as exceptional
by any significant academic group and his character is viewed as flawed."
Is this, too, an example of the Ad Populem fallacy? Does Ad Populem
necessarily have to do with claiming the support of the crowd? How about
claiming the disdain of the crowd?
[Hermit 6] A slew of fallacies, from ad populam (claiming support of the
crowd) to ad hominem.
[Hermit 4] It is not at all irrelevant. Neither was it poisoning the well.
The man takes short cuts in all directions and uses his spurious "authority"
to make a never ending stream of assertions accepted approvingly only by
people infested with a similar political ideology. His work is not regarded
as exceptional by any significant academic group and his character is viewed
as flawed. The mention of his history suffices to prove that this is neither
a stretch nor a new phenomenon. In science at least, but in academia
generally in my experience, reputation is jealously guarded, because you
have only one. Scruton has one, but it smells a bit like last week's hake.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.63
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Studying Ad Populem, was: ideohazard 1.1
« Reply #2 on: 2003-09-29 13:58:00 » |
|
I think there is a difference between ad populem (everybody says so) and
'peer review' which is an accepted part, as I understand, of the
scientific method. Of course peer review does not guarantee a 'correct'
opinion, but it does seem probable that any such opinion will at least
be based on the best available information on any given subject.
We will often have to trust in the best efforts of experts in a field,
and then compare them to each other, in order to derive our own
conclusions - it simply is not possible to read everything.
I read once that a physician-specialist, for instance, would have to
spend eight hours a day reading in order to just remain current in his
specialty. In an ideal universe everyone would read everything, but
given that this is impossible we will probably have to accept the peer
review process as being the best we can do.
One of the most important things we CAN do however is to sharpen and
maintain our ability to reason. In this way we can gain the most benefit
from that which we do have the time to read. Also it will give us a
criterion for deciding what it is not necessary or rewarding to read.
The debate between Jonathan and the Hermit was interesting to me not so
much because of the subject (about which I know next to nothing) but
because of their, mostly, adherence to the formal methodology of
argument. This was educational for me and, I imagine, other Virians.
It could have been, IMHO, even more educational from a specifically
Varian point of view had they more resolutely couched their value
judgments in terms of Scruton's conformity, or lack thereof, to the
Virian ideals.(Not that they made no attempt to do so, but it did seem
to become a bit diffused from time to time.)
Best Regards
Blunderov
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On
Behalf
> Of Kalkor
> Sent: 29 September 2003 1849
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: virus: Studying Ad Populem, was: ideohazard 1.1
>
> [Kalkor]
> Massive amounts of the thread snipped, to focus on one recurring point
I
> keep seeing. Since we're in the hobby of studying memetics, I thought
we'd
> study this one logical fallacy a bit as it doesn't seem to get much
> attention but is USED a lot in, for instance, advertising. Ad Populem.
>
> Below I have quoted Hermit during this exchange. I would like to state
> that
> the quotes were chosen by scanning through quickly until I found some
> keywords. The object of this post is not to attack anyone, but to
discuss
> the finer points of peer review versus the Ad Populem fallacy.
>
> The Ad Populem fallacy states that it is fallacious in argument to say
> something like "everyone else agrees with him so you should too". So
what
> about saying something like "accepted approvingly only by people
infested
> with a similar political ideology. His work is not regarded as
exceptional
> by any significant academic group and his character is viewed as
flawed."
>
> Is this, too, an example of the Ad Populem fallacy? Does Ad Populem
> necessarily have to do with claiming the support of the crowd? How
about
> claiming the disdain of the crowd?
>
> [Hermit 6] A slew of fallacies, from ad populam (claiming support of
the
> crowd) to ad hominem.
>
> [Hermit 4] It is not at all irrelevant. Neither was it poisoning the
well.
> The man takes short cuts in all directions and uses his spurious
> "authority"
> to make a never ending stream of assertions accepted approvingly only
by
> people infested with a similar political ideology. His work is not
> regarded
> as exceptional by any significant academic group and his character is
> viewed
> as flawed. The mention of his history suffices to prove that this is
> neither
> a stretch nor a new phenomenon. In science at least, but in academia
> generally in my experience, reputation is jealously guarded, because
you
> have only one. Scruton has one, but it smells a bit like last week's
hake.
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-
> bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.78
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:virus: Studying Ad Populem, was: ideohazard 1.1
« Reply #4 on: 2003-09-29 15:11:34 » |
|
Kalkor,
Any fallacy has to be based on the fact that the underlying information is not accurate and relevant or that an argument is unsound or not compelling.
As academia works on the basis of consensus, the number of academics accepting a work is relevent. As the author in question complains on his own site, that academia rejects him - and quotes the "person whom, to be insulted by, is a compliment" (so presumably the reverse should also apply)
Quote:“There are few more valuable thinkers in Britain – or indeed, the world – today. His vilification and rejection by the academic establishment is disgraceful. In comparison with him, most of his critics are intellectual pygmies. Both left and right should be grateful to have such a man to sharpen and define the issues. And philosophers should be grateful that he has placed their subject at the very centre of current affairs. Perhaps Scruton’s greatest contribution is his living demonstration of the truth that without philosophy we are nothing.” Bryan Appleyard, The Sunday Times
See also the hate-site linked to this site by Clive Bates of ASH |
http://www.rogerscruton.com/rs-cv.html
So his rejection not being in question, and the number rejecting him being relevent, I don't think that argumentum ad populam applies.
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Kharin
Archon
Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.29
Rate Kharin
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
|
|
Re:virus: Studying Ad Populem, was: ideohazard 1.1
« Reply #5 on: 2003-09-29 17:54:15 » |
|
Replies to Kalkor and Blunderov as follows:
Blunderov wrote:
Quote:"It could have been, IMHO, even more educational from a specifically
Varian point of view had they more resolutely couched their value
judgments in terms of Scruton's conformity, or lack thereof, to the
Virian ideals." |
How well do most religious conservatives you know of conform to Virian ideals? Still, since you asked:
Scruton on empathy:
Quote:| "It is now orthodox to regard social stigma as a form of oppression, to be discarded on our collective quest for inner freedom... Stigma has evaporated in our era, and along with it much of the constant, small-scale self-regulation of the community, which depends on each individual's respect for, and fear of, other people's judgment... piety is a social necessity; it speaks of duties that lie above and beyond our desires and contracts. If people cease to recognize such duties, society will crumble into “the dust and powder of individuality.” |
Scruton on reason:
Quote:"Burke brought home to me that our most necessary beliefs may be both unjustified and unjustifiable from our own perspective, and that the attempt to justify them will lead merely to their loss. Replacing them with the abstract rational systems of the philosophers, we may think ourselves more rational and better equipped for life in the modern world. But in fact we are less well equipped, and our new beliefs are far less justified, for the very reason that they are justified by ourselves. The real justification for a prejudice is the one which justifies it as a prejudice, rather than as a rational conclusion of an argument....
...This substitution of reason for prejudice has indeed occurred. And the result is exactly as Burke would have anticipated. Not merely a breakdown in trust between the sexes, but a faltering in the reproductive process—a failing and enfeebled commitment of parents, not merely to each other, but also to their offspring. At the same time, individual feelings, which were shored up and fulfilled by the traditional prejudices, are left exposed and unprotected by the skeletal structures of rationality. Hence the extraordinary situation in America, where lawsuits have replaced common courtesy, where post-coital accusations of “date-rape” take the place of pre-coital modesty, and where advances made by the unattractive are routinely penalized as “sexual harrassment.” This is an example of what happens, when prejudice is wiped away in the name of reason, without regard for the real social function that prejudice alone can fulfill." |
Scruton on vision:
Quote:| "In Burke’s eyes the self-righteous contempt for ancestors which characterized the Revolutionaries was also a disinheriting of the unborn. Rightly understood, he argued, society is a partnership among the dead, the living, and the unborn, and without what he called the “hereditary principle,” according to which rights could be inherited as well as acquired, both the dead and the unborn would be disenfranchized. Indeed, respect for the dead was, in Burke’s view, the only real safeguard that the unborn could obtain, in a world that gave all its privileges to the living. His preferred vision of society was not as a contract, in fact, but as a trust." |
Clearly the sort of person we wish to have as a Virian saint. While we are at it, may I also take the liberty of nominating Aquinas, Augustine, Rasputin, Vlad the Impaler and George Bush?
Kalkor wrote:
Quote:"The object of this post is not to attack anyone, but to discuss
the finer points of peer review versus the Ad Populem fallacy." |
I think that is a potentially interesting subject, but not one that is easy to apply in this context. Firstly, because a concept like peer review is rather more imprecise when applied in the context of the humanities than in the sciences. Secondly, because in the case of Scruton one has be reviewed at all in order for peer review to take place; this is not something that the individual in question is able to take for granted. As an example, the most obvious publication for such matters, the London Review of Books, did not think the West and the Rest worth bothering with. This is not surprising; Scruton's expertise in Middle Eastern history and Islamic theology was entirely undeclared prior to September 11th.
Admittedly, Scruton's two previous publications before that were reviewed. To read Scruton is to loathe him and I can confirm that the reviewers in question had most certainly read him. Conversely, Scruton does not appear to have been invited to contribute to the Review at all; instead he appears to largely write for non-academic conservative publications, such as City Journal (a US asylum-cum-publication that allows British conservatives to write particularly deranged pieces they can't manage to get printed here).
|
|
|
|
|
Kharin
Archon
Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.29
Rate Kharin
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
|
|
Re:virus: Studying Ad Populem, was: ideohazard 1.1
« Reply #6 on: 2003-09-29 18:03:48 » |
|
In replying to Blunderov, regarding Scruton's conformity to Virian ideals, I seem to have missed one essential point. With apologies to the congregation, I shall now correct this:
Scruton on religion:
Quote:| "If an article were to appear in a newspaper describing a drug that prolonged life by so much as a year, the medicine would be hailed as a miracle cure. The real miracle cure--religious belief--seems to have a seven-year advantage over atheism, yet it goes unrecognized by Nanny. Indeed, the health consequences of the libertine life-style are, when compared with the consequences of smoking, truly disastrous. Add atheism, relativism, promiscuity, homosexuality, easy divorce, and unstable relationships together, and you probably knock ten years off your life expectancy. But Nanny will never tell you this and will go on reproaching you for your naughty habit of smoking in corners, even if it is the only way, with such a demanding life-style, to obtain a moment's quiet relief." |
|
|
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.01
Rate JD
|
|
RE: virus: Studying Ad Populem, was: ideohazard 1.1
« Reply #7 on: 2003-09-29 18:01:49 » |
|
Shame. Poor Hermit cannot leave it alone. Like that muttering man who beats
the greasy stain where his dead horse used to be, you are more pitied for
obsession that respected for heroic perseverance.
In deference to wishes of the congregation, I will not be continuing this
Scruton discussion. The arguments are won and lost; I am satisfied with the
result.
Enjoy the book those of you who are going to be reading it.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Hermit
Sent: 29 September 2003 20:12
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re:virus: Studying Ad Populem, was: ideohazard 1.1
Kalkor,
Any fallacy has to be based on the fact that the underlying information is
not accurate and relevant or that an argument is unsound or not compelling.
As academia works on the basis of consensus, the number of academics
accepting a work is relevent. As the author in question complains on his own
site, that academia rejects him - and quotes the "person whom, to be
insulted by, is a compliment" (so presumably the reverse should also
apply)"There are few more valuable thinkers in Britain - or indeed, the
world - today. His vilification and rejection by the academic establishment
is disgraceful. In comparison with him, most of his critics are intellectual
pygmies. Both left and right should be grateful to have such a man to
sharpen and define the issues. And philosophers should be grateful that he
has placed their subject at the very centre of current affairs. Perhaps
Scruton's greatest contribution is his living demonstration of the truth
that without philosophy we are nothing." Bryan Appleyard, The Sunday Times
See also the hate-site linked to this site by Clive Bates of ASH
http://www.rogerscruton.com/rs-cv.html
So his rejection not being in question, and the number rejecting him being
relevent, I don't think that argumentum ad populam applies.
Hermit
----
This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus
BBS.
<http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=293
68>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.01
Rate JD
|
|
Re:virus: Studying Ad Populem, was: ideohazard 1.1
« Reply #9 on: 2003-09-29 18:14:20 » |
|
Quote from: Kharin on 2003-09-29 17:54:15
Replies to Kalkor and Blunderov as follows:
|
SNIP
You seem to have missed the point Karin. The Scruton discussion is over, this thread is a general discussion on a type of fallacy.
I hope you are not posting-by-proxy for Hermit on the old topic. We have moved on old boy, keep up :-)
Kind regards
Jonathan
P.S. Incidentally, you said "To read Scruton is to loathe him". This is manifestly wrong. I have read Scruton and love him. The settles that then.
|
|
|
|
|
Kharin
Archon
Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.29
Rate Kharin
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
|
|
Re:virus: Studying Ad Populem, was: ideohazard 1.1
« Reply #10 on: 2003-09-29 18:25:01 » |
|
Quote:| "You seem to have missed the point Karin(sic). The Scruton discussion is over, this thread is a general discussion on a type of fallacy. " |
How exceedingly convenient for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.63
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Studying Ad Populem, was: ideohazard 1.1
« Reply #11 on: 2003-09-29 18:24:54 » |
|
Kharin
> Sent: 29 September 2003 2354
> <snip>
> Clearly the sort of person we wish to have as a Virian saint. While
we
> are at it, may I also take the liberty of nominating Aquinas,
Augustine,
> Rasputin, Vlad the Impaler and George Bush?
</snip>
[Blunderov]
Thanks for your clarification of Scruton in terms of the Virian ideals.
I almost couldn't believe what I was reading at times - it didn't seem
to me to be the reasoning of a professional at all. His sense of cause
and effect seems sketchy at best. He seems to make an assumption that
what the world has become is by definition defective. I think I can
safely conclude that I do not wish to read anymore.
Best Regards
Blunderov
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.63
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Studying Ad Populem, was: ideohazard 1.1
« Reply #12 on: 2003-09-29 18:40:06 » |
|
Jonathan Davis
> Sent: 30 September 2003 0014
<snip>
> You seem to have missed the point Karin. The Scruton discussion is
over,
> this thread is a general discussion on a type of fallacy.
</snip>
[Blunderov] Well, I sort of asked a question and Kharin replied. I never
agreed to stop talking about it. (You can't offer me some more tea if I
haven't had any yet!)
And I'm glad that Kharin replied because it was this direct correlation
between Scruton's values and Virian values that finally convinced me not
to read him.
Best Regards
Blunderov
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.01
Rate JD
|
|
RE: virus: Studying Ad Populem, was: ideohazard 1.1
« Reply #13 on: 2003-09-29 18:51:53 » |
|
[Blunderov]
Thanks for your clarification of Scruton in terms of the Virian ideals.
I almost couldn't believe what I was reading at times - it didn't seem
to me to be the reasoning of a professional at all. His sense of cause
and effect seems sketchy at best. He seems to make an assumption that
what the world has become is by definition defective. I think I can
safely conclude that I do not wish to read anymore.
[Jonathan] Right on cue. You boys make a good team. I will ignore Uncle Hermit behind the curtain :-)
You may not read anymore, but for those still partial to reading, why not find out for yourselves about what we are discussing, namely the book "The West and The Rest" by Roger Scruton. Selectively quoting the author from other irrelevant works is neither here nor there. It is simply poisoning the well. The only loss will be to those who refuse to investigate for themselves because they fooled by defamation.
It is difficult to fight a coordinated attack alone, so I will let you read for yourselves what Scruton says (in context and relevant to what I am recommending) and withdraw from this discussion as requested by fellows in this forum.
The West and the Rest
http://www.morec.com/hyperion/scruton.htm
Roger Scruton Internet Bibliography
http://www.morec.com/scruton.htm (for those who might want to challenge themselves and broaden their range of sources or viewpoints)
Kind regards
Jonathan
|
|
|
|
|
Kharin
Archon
Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.29
Rate Kharin
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
|
|
Re:virus: Studying Ad Populem, was: ideohazard 1.1
« Reply #14 on: 2003-09-29 18:53:25 » |
|
Dear Blunderov,
Quote:"I almost couldn't believe what I was reading at times - it didn't seem
to me to be the reasoning of a professional at all. His sense of cause
and effect seems sketchy at best. He seems to make an assumption that
what the world has become is by definition defective." |
I think that's probably about that right. There is a certain class of conservatism to whom the entirety of the modern world is reviled and rejected. Some more examples for the road;
Scruton on science:
Quote:| "His authority is not philosophy but science—and in particular the studies in primatology that have told us how very like the apes we are, and how very like us are the apes. The movement in favor of animal rights is not merely the latest example of the "rights inflation" that liberals have always promoted. It is part of a larger movement of ideas away from the other-worldly dogmas of religion to the this-worldly theories of science. Science now stands at the apex of our beliefs, and a morality derived from any other source is apt to appear quaint and outmoded. And when science is in charge, duties sink still further into the background, since only God can give commands, and God is in retirement." |
Scruton on abortion;
Quote:| "The continuing emphasis on rights, in a world that has lost sight of its duties, is as much a fragmenting as a cohesive social force. This, surely, is the real meaning of the conservative complaint that an activist judiciary undermines the "moral majority." By constantly extending and amplifying the list of rights, the Supreme Court also depletes the reservoir of duties. Striking in this respect was the decision in Roe v. Wade, which deprived the unborn fetus of all rights under the Constitution." |
I feel that, on the whole, my grounds for comparing Scruton to Falwell and Buchanan should be abundantly clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
