Author
|
Topic: RE: virus: Studying Ad Populem (Read 1337 times) |
|
Kalkor
Magister
Gender: 
Posts: 109
Reputation: 6.78
Rate Kalkor
Kneading the swollen donkey...
 
  
|
 |
RE: virus: Studying Ad Populem
« on: 2003-09-29 17:25:23 » |
 |
[Kalkor]
Ok, I've trimmed and copied and snipped a bit, to change this particular
discussion from one about an argument to one about argument. If anyone has
any problems with my snipping, please let me know.
So, my original proposal for this discussion, which I have purposefully left
out of this iteration of the thread (so that I can re-propose it in a
different manner), was this:
If the argument, "lots of people agree with this guy so he must be correct"
is fallacious, then wouldn't the approximate converse, "lots of people
disagree with this guy so he must be incorrect" also be fallacious?
[Hermit]
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.
[snip]
So his rejection not being in question, and the number rejecting him being
relevent, I don't think that argumentum ad populam applies.
[Kalkor]
As Hermit points out, a fallacy just tells us that the argument is
inaccurate, irrelevant, unsound, or not compelling. (if this is not a
complete list, please help me here guys ;-})
So, where would an argument such as, "His work is not regarded
as exceptional by any significant academic group and his character is viewed
as flawed." fit into our scheme? On the one hand, since it's an academic in
discussion, whether he's viewed as correct by the rest of academia is surely
relevant. On the other hand, not being regarded as exceptional does not
necessarily imply being regarded as substandard (argumentum ad ignorantiam).
Furthermore, would the argument "his character is viewed as flawed (by an
academic group)," have ANY relevance to any discussion other than about the
character of a man?
[Jonathan Davis]
It is also a fallacy, know as Argumentum ad Odium (See
http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/emotiona.html ) and related to Argumentum ad
Numerum (see http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#numerum).
[Kalkor]
Jonathan pointed us to some fallacy taxonomy websites, and I will quote from
the second one:
Quote:Argumentum ad numerum
This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It consists of
asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the
more likely it is that that proposition is correct.
|
The approximate converse of this would be to assert "the fewer people who
support or believe a proposition, the less likely it is that the proposition
is correct." This is one of the explicit foundations behind the scientific
method, afaik. The proposition being, in most cases, "the results from the
experiment do not falsify the hypothesis."
I don't see the Ad Odium in this particular argument, but I've seen it in
others. Thanks for the links, Jonathan. I'll be doing some work on my
taxonomy after reading the second one a bit more.
[Blunderov]
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.)
[Kalkor]
Well said, and I agree. I, too, know very little about the subject of
discussion, but observing the techniques IN the discussion is always
educational for me here. Keep it up, guys!
Kalkor
---
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
« Reply #1 on: 2003-09-29 18:07:45 » |
|
Kalkor
> Sent: 29 September 2003 2325
[Blunderov] Well, Brother Kalkor, you have set me a googling and
abracadabra! The mighty internet produced at my instant behest:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
<q>
An '''appeal to authority''', '''argument from authority''' or
'''argumentum ad verecundiam''' is one method of obtaining
[propositional knowledge]. Some examples of appeals to authority:
* Referring to the philosophical beliefs of Aristotle.
* Quotes from religious books such as the Bible.
* Claiming that some crime is morally wrong because it is illegal.
* Referencing scientific research published in a peer reviewed journal.
* Believing what one is told by one's teacher.
Sometimes an appeal to authority is regarded as a logical fallacy. This
is the case when a person presenting a position on a subject mentions an
authority who also holds that position, but may not be an authority in
that area. For instance, the statement "Arthur C. Clarke recently
released a report showing it is necessary to floss three times daily"
would be unlikely to impress many people, as Arthur C. Clarke is not an
expert on dental hygiene. Much of advertising relies on this logical
fallacy, for example when Michael Winner promotes car insurance, despite
having no expertise in the field of car insurance.
Citing a person who ''is'' a recognized authority in the field is likely
to carry more weight. In the middle ages, roughly from the 12th century
to the 15th century, the philosophy of Aristotle became firmly
established dogma, and referring to the beliefs of Aristotle was an
important part of many debates. Aristotle's thought became so central
to the philosophy of the late Middle Ages that he became known in Latin
as ''Ille Philosophus'', "'''''the''''' philosopher," and quotations
from Aristotle became known as ''ipse dixits'' ("He, himself, has
spoken.").
Authoritarian ethics is the ethical theory by which one attains ethical
knowledge from an authority, for example from a God or from the law.
The bandwagon fallacy can be viewed as a special case of an appeal to
authority, where the authority is public opinion.
</q>
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
<q>
Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a scholarly
process used in the publication of manuscripts and in the awarding of
money for research. Publishers and agencies use peer review to select
and to screen submissions. At the same time, the process assists authors
in meeting the standards of their discipline.
Table of contents
1 How it works
2 Recruiting Referees
3 Different Styles of Review
4 Non-idealities
5 Peer Review and Software Development
How it works
Peer review subjects an author's work or ideas to the scrutiny of two or
more others who are experts in the field of the subject at hand.
Referees return a text to its author with edits, annotation and
suggestions for improvement. Typically referees remain anonymous to the
authors and are not selected from among the authors' close colleagues,
relatives or friends.
A chief rationale for peer review is that rarely is just one person, or
one closely working group, able to spot every mistake or flaw in a
complicated piece of work. Therefore showing the work to various others
increases the odds that every weakness will be identified--and with
advice perhaps fixed. The anonymity and independence of reviewers
fosters unvarnished criticism and discourages cronyism in granting and
publication decisions.
<snip>
</q>
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
« Reply #2 on: 2003-09-29 18:54:44 » |
|
If only all our haymaker brawls would spawn genuinely interesting threads
like this! Well done Kalkor (and Blunderlov). Good work.
Kind regards
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Kalkor
Sent: 29 September 2003 22:25
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: RE: virus: Studying Ad Populem/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
« Reply #3 on: 2003-09-29 19:43:17 » |
|
[Kalkor] So, where would an argument such as, "His work is not regarded as exceptional by any significant academic group and his character is viewed as flawed." fit into our scheme? On the one hand, since it's an academic in discussion, whether he's viewed as correct by the rest of academia is surely relevant. On the other hand, not being regarded as exceptional does not necessarily imply being regarded as substandard (argumentum ad ignorantiam). Furthermore, would the argument "his character is viewed as flawed (by an
academic group)," have ANY relevance to any discussion other than about the character of a man?
[Hermit] Blunderov nailed it again with one of his beautifully short, clear summations.
[Hermit] We don't have time to study or read everything. Nobody does. So we rely on a process to filter material. Part of that filtering relates to the author.
[Hermit] Going in the reverse order to that asked, for reasons that will hopefully become apparent, "reputation" and by this I mean "academic reputation" is critical to acceptance by the academic community. It is much the same in journalism. If we cannot trust our authors to be honest, then it doesn't matter whether they argue for something we agree with or not. Nobody has the time to check all assertions, references, reports and connections made even in a small work. And if we cite something in error, then onus cannot be passed on, it is always the author's responsibility to check the sources - unless they come from a well accepted work representing the consensus position. So, particularly with material from outside the mainstream consensus, there is a well justified tendency to look very carefully at the authors of works before quoting from their scribblings. This brings us to the author's reputation - and as we have seen hints of here, academic reputations are generally held to a very high standard - higher than the man on the street - because it is critical to academics' careers that they be able to trust their sources. When there is even a shadow of doubt about an author, their works tend to be shunned. For good reason. The cost of involvement through association is too high.
[Hermit] So, as I have shown, there are excellent reasons for looking at the reputation of an author. When their integrity has been shown to be horribly flawed (as is the case with the author in question) you can usually stop there and draw a line.
[Hermit] More usually, there are no such simple answers, we have to dig further. We ask: "Who is the person writing?" "Is the person writing "recognized'? "Do others say that they are they saying something new, relevant or significant?" "Can we trust the person writing to do so with rigor and honesty?"
[Hermit] It is easier to do this with authors in academia. They tend to be known, and their in-field expertise recognised. The recognition primarily takes the form of post graduate degrees. I may joke about PhDs being measured on the mass of the pile, but no reputable institution grants a PhD without an awful lot of consensus that it is deserved, by other academics who put their reputation on-the-line behind their proteges. This leads inexorably to the question of which institution granted a degree, and who the sponsors were. Preferably, the degrees relate to the field of writing, so an out-of-field degree counts less, in that it does not validate the author's competence, even so, it does speak to their capability - and potentially to their integrity. When the author holds no higher degrees at all, as appears to be the case with the current author, no such validation process is possible.
[Hermit] Honarary degrees don't count. When the author holds nothing but honorary degrees from unknown institutes, the value of the award is impossible to evaluate. None of the usual checks and balances apply. For a small investment or a little publicity, many Eastern European institutions will award an honorary degree. For a larger endowment, even reputable Univerities can be persuaded to award an honorary degree. I'm thinking, for example, of Kellog's (the Cornflakes guys), persuading Oxford to award an honorary Doctrate to Bill Clinton in exchange for an endowed chair. But this is largely irrelevent. Every academic knows that an honorary degree isn't worth spit - and academic ettiquette precludes the use of an honorary degree except on the awarding campus during ceremonies where it is appropriate. The author under discussion does not seem to recognise the above.
[Hermit] The primary measures of academic recognition are twofold. Tenure is a significant milestone. Many Universities appoint visiting professors to their departments. Often such people have only experience in the real world which the University recognises may be helpful to their students. Sometimes a visiting professor is appointed because his presence will attract publicity or gifts. Against this, a tenured position is something very different. Once an academic is tenured, they become almost impossible to fire unless they engage in outrageous behavior - and sometimes, not even then. So tenure indicates that an academic's peers recognise expertise and ability and trust the person receiving tenure to the degree that they will grant a effectively unlimited platform from which to speak. Secondly the person will have published. This in itself may be somewhat significant, when their publications are made in refereed and peer reviewed journals, or when they appear as co-authors on pieces by recognised authorities. Usually more important, is whether their works are cited by others - and how well regarded those citing it are. When this happens, it indicates that the work is regarded as significant or even seminal. Secondly it indicates that the people citing the work (except as a horrrible example) trust the author sufficiently to place their reputations on-the-line.
[Hermit] The author currently under discussion is not tenured, despite claiming to have visited in a number of academic environments. Most of these are not recognisable as centers of academic excellence (and for the reasons reflected above, it would not be very significant if they were). His works are not published in refereed or peer-reviewed journals. He does not reflect co-authorship by significant authors. I can't find any citations for him in the humanities index. These all indicate issues with trust.
[Hermit] Finally, there is a certain class of person who produces a work or works of such significance or seminal import, that all the above become less than important. Examples are a paper writen by an obscure customs clerk in 1905 which was accepted for publication by the "Annals of Physics." This despite the fact that he had been expelled from one institution, failed the entrance examinations for another and was regarded as a poor and disruptive student. His name was, of course, Alfred Einstein. Another example would be HG Wells, who, working as a novellist published works of history and sociology that gained him International recognition. So, when the works are exceptional, the author's credentials may be overlooked. But this does not happen very often.
[Hermit] This process might seem unfair, it sometimes is. Although most of the complaints tend to come from those unfamiliar with the academic process who don't understand why their writings - or favorite books are disparaged. Even when it isn't content related (and this case this may have a lot to do with it*) the process is effective. Given the huge volumes of nonsense out there, monuments to the futility of turning trees into paper, we need something effective to allow anyone to accomplish anything at all.
[Hermit] *There is so much material out there that is so "wrongminded", advocated by people who can't grasp why it is "wrongminded", that one could spend several lifetimes arguing the merits and demerits of just a few of them. The process detailed above filters out such dross without needing to address individual cases. Only idiots bother responding to windmills waving such flags.
Which probably says something about me.
Hermit (petting his donkey)
|
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
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.01
Rate JD
|
|
RE: virus: Studying Ad Populem
« Reply #4 on: 2003-09-29 19:59:41 » |
|
Quote from: Hermit on 2003-09-29 19:43:17
[Kalkor] So, where would an argument such as, "His work is not regarded as exceptional by any significant academic group and his character is viewed as flawed." fit into our scheme? On the one hand, since it's an academic in discussion, whether he's viewed as correct by the rest of academia is surely relevant. On the other hand, not being regarded as exceptional does not necessarily imply being regarded as substandard (argumentum ad ignorantiam). Furthermore, would the argument "his character is viewed as flawed (by an
academic group)," have ANY relevance to any discussion other than about the character of a man?
[Hermit] Blunderov nailed it again with one of his beautifully short, clear summations. |
One has to laugh at you...err...donkey boy/Hermit!
Here Kalkor has just skewerd your point and you celebrate.
Th summary of your post relevant to Scruton was that authority or popularity are pretty much all that count.
I will enjoy reminding you next time you post another madcap "plan" or story-rant or whatever, that you are not tenured, and your works not subject to proper peer review and that you are a figure of hate/pity for some and that you have been mocked and skewered in your microcosmic noosphere (the CoV) etc etc etc.
Appeals to merit will be referred to this and other of your posts.
Regards
Jonathan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
