This subpage for the Derrida discussion page has been linked for RfC. 5 July 2005 15:19 (UTC)
An ad hominem attack is when one attacks the (wo)man, not her/his argument. There is a difference between an argumentum ad hominem and an insult. An insult doesn't imply argumentation, and it isn't bound the rules of logic. The following is a passage from this article:
This isn't an example of an ad hominem attack, it's an example of an insult. -- Maprovonsha172 02:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Now you're throwing around abuse sloppily. Whilst speaking of misusing terminology, please justify your repeated insistence on labeling those who don't agree with you "postmodernists." And might we note that we may preserve a narrow definition without accepting the usage you seem intent on mandating? You've not acknowledged my previous remark about the logic of the remark. Could we please leave the article reverted until we can have a reasonable discussion on this? I haven't the sense that we've had any discussion on the matter when you've not so much as acknowledged my request to set aside editing until we have some degree of consensus or spoken to the furthe change I've made to accomodate your objection without creating what I take to be an incorrect assessment ("a logical fallacy is assumed where none appear:" exactly what materials have you reviewed to justify this assertion?). -- Buffyg 10:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I gather you've not been reading my responses, including the remark: "I see the following statement uncontested where you have asked elsewhere for agreement to what you have laid out above: 'Well, if premise 2 of your argument is true then the conclusion would follow. That would be a legitimate use of the ad hominem because the truth of P2 does have a bearing on the truth of the conclusion.'" I could have just as easily cited the following remark at the end of the thread: "Now you just have to prove the premises." The distinction is not simply about logical validity, so you have to demonstrate more than that: you have to show that there is reason to accept the premise for conclusions drawn from it not to be fallacious. -- Buffyg 30 June 2005 08:03 (UTC)
I've tried to be as nice and as patient as I can be but you all argue about things you don't know much about. I'm reminded of Alan Sokal's book Fashionable Nonsense in which he showed the postmodernists use scientific terms of which they don't know their meanings (and yes, Buffy, I know Derrida wasn‘t a target of the book‘s criticism but just because he didn‘t use or misuse scientific terms doesn‘t mean he wasn‘t a charlatan).
"Your cherry picking definitions; as you well know, the word means someone who practices trickery, who makes shit up." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant "You're", even then, it isn't much of an accusation. "As I well know"? I looked it up and that's what came up.
"So the "argument" is circular at best." You continue to defend Derrida despite the facts. Do you even know what "circular" means? Are you a philosopher/philosophy student? Well I am a philosophy student. I know what I am talking about. A circular argument is set up like the following:
(A-->B) (B-->C) (C-->A)
You cannot call the following circular because it (obvious to anyone who knows what they are talking about) plainly isn't:
P1:Jacques Derrida wrote about literature and philosophy.
P2:Jacques Derrida is a charlatan.
C:I should take what he wrote about literature and philosophy at a grain of salt.
That's not a circular argument, that's just using logic. Anyone who knows what they are talking about would know that. It isn't circular because even if "I should take him/her at a grain of salt" were the exact definition of a charlatan (which it hardly is), a charlatan isn't the only type of person you should take at a grain of salt. A rage-aholic or a bitter enemy or a sociopath could be other possibilities, so it is all not perfectly symmetrical, and therefore not circular overall. A charlatan has specific modes and motivations; it is not the only path to lying. Moreover, lying is not the only path to misdirection , and only the milder charge of misdirection is needed to raise the cautionary grain-of-salt flag. Even if it were tautological (which it isn't), it wouldn't necessarily be circular. Here is an example of a non-circular tautology:
A=B, so B=A.
I quite honestly don't mean to sound malicious, but if you guys knew what you were talking about, we never would have had this discussion. In philosophy, we deductively infer truths from premises. The above argument concluding that we should take Derrida at a grain of salt is logically valid, if (if you dispute the premises) unsound. It is neither an example of the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem nor the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. There is no disputing that. To say, "Nothing misleading at all about calling it that," regarding calling something an "ad hominem" when it isn't an illegitimate ad hominem is almost certainly purposefully misleading spoken by anyone at all knowledgeable about formal reasoning. Obviously, there are widespread and deeply-held misconceptions about formal reasoning, and if it is so difficult to explain to other wikipedians imagine how hard it would be for the student looking up information on Wikipedia. I'm beginning to wonder if he should trust us enough to do so. Wikipedia runs the risk of misinforming thousands of people when they refuse to put what is actually correct in their articles. This isn't truth by consensus, or it least it shouldn't be.
I'm reminded of Harry Frankfurt's essay On Bullshit, in which he lamented the fact that in a democracy, everyone feels as though they should have an opinion on EVERYTHING, even things they aren't qualified to have an opinion on. The result is the mass-acceptance of bullshit, and the great success of Bullshitters. I fear this may be happening to Wikipedia. This is democratizing academia, and bullshit-promotion has ensued. To say that calling Derrida a charlatan an “ad hominem” implies (to laypeople) that it is logically fallacious; I have shown that it is neither an example of circular reasoning nor the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem. “Insult” is a better word; it is accurate, unpretentious, and carries a lighter (and more appropriate) connotation than the (in this case) misleading technical philosophical term, "ad hominem." So I am going to change it back to "insult," and since I have shown that (to anyone that knows what we are talking about) "ad hominem" isn't suitable here because it is misleading, and "insult" would be just as accurate but even more so as it is not misleading, anyone changing it back is only doing so to attack Derrida's detractors. It sounds bad (for Derrida's critics) if under the heading "Derrida and his critics" we begin by accusing them of logical fallacies. I'm not saying all ad hominems are logically fallacious (a point I hope everyone here understands) but we can’t expect the average layperson to know that. And isn't that who we are trying to inform? As it stands, this article serves to misinform. Like Frankfurt's criticism of the democratic attitude to have an opinion about everything, damn the experts; Wikipedia is a democratization of information and the consequences have led to the same attitude - damn the experts. Maybe it would be better if we only write about what we know, instead of trying to get in on everything, or at least, what we don't know. I don't try to write about anything I'm not knowledgeable, and it seems commonsense to me for everyone to do the same. I'm not going to argue about calculus or German poetry, if you don't know about philosophy don't argue about philosophy. So, as I said, I'm going to change it back, and if you want to (as you threatened) Buffy, go ahead and involve an administrator. I happen to be right in this discussion and I’m concerned this all only serves to make Wikipedia look bad, putting patent bullshit up on our articles (and this isn't the only article). I've heard people say that they wouldn't trust Wikipedia as a source, and I tried to tell them that we change things when they aren't right (which still of course wouldn't help the person getting bad information from an article before it's corrected), but now I'm beginning to agree with them. Maprovonsha172 1 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)
How about instead of saying "tarring," you point out one false accusation. I think I've presented a pretty good case: you don't know what the hell you're talking about and yet you persist, for the only apparent reason that you wish to discredit Derrida's detractors in his article.
"Again, an edit without waiting for reply." Yeah, well, the article ought to be as truthful as it can be, and if that means changing your edit that's just what it means.
And what do you mean by "invoking Sokal and postmodernism"? Invoking? Did you even read what I said? Here's exactly what I said in case you didn't read it the first time:
You see, I said "I'm reminded" of Sokal's book because your arguments invite comparison with those postmodernist writings he tore apart in his book. It invites comparison because the postmodernists used technical scientific terminology they apparently didn't understand, you're using technical philosophical terminology you apparently don't understand.
My point is that everyone knows what insult means, and as Conf said, insult carries a very negative connotation, so why not call it an insult? It is an insult. It is also a legitimate ad hominem, but to laypeople a legitimate ad hominem implies truthfulness and "ad hominem" implies falsity. Wikipedia is not written for technical people, it is written for everyone. As I said about Frankfurt's essay, On Bullshit, it is this democratization of information that has led to the low quality of many of wikipedia's articles. Wikipedia lets anyone write anything, sometimes patent nonsense is removes, othertimes many people agree with it and it is therefore truth by consensus. That is a logical fallacy. It is argumentum ad populum to think that the majority knows what is right. And if every other Wikipedian agrees with you every other Wikipedian is wrong. In a democracy we should have have liberty, but liberty must be restrained so one doesn't hinder a neighbor's liberty. Perhaps we should have permits on Wikipedia, allowing some users to write on topics they are versed in. A permit for classical music, a permit for psychology, and a permit for philosophy. As it is now, it is absurd for people who don't know all that much about philosophy to be making grandoise philosophical claims ("this argument is circular," "that's an ad hominem") when they clearly don't know what they are talking about.
Yes Bertrand Russell is my favorite philosopher, but I never defend him irrationally. He is not without error. As a matter of fact I've never written anything on his article or talk page. But you obviously have a thing for Derrida, and you defend him irrationally, as I said; "despite the facts." You want to discredit his detractors so right in the begining of that part of the article you accuse them of logical fallacies where there are none. You haven't presented good arguments, on the contrary you and your sympathizer Sloat have shown that you don't have a rudimentary understanding of formal reasoning (or should I say one you get from only reading the wikipedia article), though you both will defend Derrida to the teeth invoking your limited knowledge of formal reasoning. I say, only philosophers and philosophy students should edit philosophy pages, who's with me? Maprovonsha172 4 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)
Should only philosophers/philosophy students be allowed to post on philosophy pages?
As it is, Buffy, you're wrong, I've shown you're wrong, and instead of answering to my arguments put forth in the first post under this new heading, you continue with your card-stacking (or as you like to say, cherry-picking) bullshit. I now understand why people don't trust wikipedia. Maprovonsha172 4 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)
It's almost laughable how wikipedia works. You say we aren't supposed to edit the article until we've reached an agreement, yet you change the article. Do you think the rules don't apply to you, or do you just make up rules as they suit you? I'm going to change it back, and you can't say I'm going against any "rule" because if it only applies to me it isn't really a rule. Maprovonsha172 4 July 2005 20:14 (UTC)
The current edit seems perfect, containing neither "insult" nor "ad hominem," indeed revealing both as unnecessary. I fail to forsee how anyone could find it problematic in any way. I hope it is to everyone's liking and we can put this one to rest. Maprovonsha172 4 July 2005 20:36 (UTC)
First, I am fine with these edits; I think this is a lot of garbage to go through over one word. But I have to reply to many of your comments which are well beyond this one word. First, I am a university professor of communication studies, with a focus on rhetoric, and yes I do have training in philosophy and formal logic; as I said, one of the courses I teach is argumentation, and I use the Damer book Attacking Faulty Reasoning, which you cited approvingly early in this discussion. I also attend and contribute to national and international conferences on argumentation and philosophy, and I have been working in this field for well over a decade. This is all to respond to your nitpicking about qualifications -- no, I am not a "philosophy student," but that does not mean, as you imply, that I do not "know what I'm talking about." I have read Derrida, Searle, Austin, Eco, Wittgenstein, and even your hero Bertrand Russell (yawn), as well as the crap by Sokal that cannot be called "philosophy" or even criticism in any realistic sense. And I'll be frank about it -- I think Sokal is full of it, I don't think he understands half of the theorists he criticizes, and, as you admit, he says nothing that has any relevance to Derrida's work; Derrida is not a "postmodernist" in any case.
Finally your comments about logic are ludicrous here, and you would not likely do well in my argumentation class with such claims. In your example -- P1 is totally irrelevant, and P2 and C are basically the same claim reworded. It's basically an argument by definition. I'm not sure why you throw in P1 -- prob ably just to make it look like part of the claim, but it is not. And as you are well aware, the term charlatan means one who cannot be believed. It is an insult, yes, and in the context of dismissing Derrida's (or anyone else's) arguments, it is an ad hominem. Instead of, say, engaging the arguments made by Derrida (or whoever), you attack the man -- ignore his arguments, you claim; he is just a charlatan, one given to making things up. This is an ad hominem as any of the books on reasoning that you yourself cite will tell you. Your claim that this is not an ad hominem seems to be pure stubbornness. And you yourself resort to faulty reasoning -- telling me I don't know what I'm talking about and claiming some kind of authority because you took a freshman philosophy class or whatever. I defy you to quote a passage from one of your logic texts that explains that this kind of insult is a "legitimate" argument. It is clearly an ad hominem, though I could care less whether that claim is made on wikipedia. What I think is really bizarre is that this is for you the main point of entry into an anti-derrida position. Obviously you don't like Derrida's work, but instead of actually discussing it, you prefer to make a big deal out of whether calling him a charlatan is an ad hominem. It's quite telling, when all is said and done. -- csloat 4 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)
"Finally your comments about logic are ludicrous here, and you would not likely do well in my argumentation class with such claims."
Professor or not, you were the one that said something was circular when it wasn't.
As for the ad hominem issue, I'm not saying it isn't ad hominem, I'm saying it's no not the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem because it follows.
"First, I am fine with these edits; I think this is a lot of garbage to go through over one word."
I couldn't agree with you more, my edit doesn't promote or attack either side. Maprovonsha172 4 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to grant any compromise with Maprovonsha172 on this issue. He is plainly wrong on the premises he has offered. Saying that this is hair-splitting is generous. If anything, we're trying to settle the issue just to stop the argument here, which has definitely dragged on. I see even less reason to compromise with someone who is willing to argue about the validity of ad hominem debate and logical formalism while making personal attacks, using fallacious ad hominem argument, using profanity, failing to demonstrate a strong command of formal argument, and admitting that he has done no research to try to review the texts cited in the article whose characterisation is in question.
We started out with the following remark: "An ad hominem attack is when one attacks the (wo)man, not her/his argument. There is a difference between an argumentum ad hominem and an insult. An insult doesn't imply argumentation, and it isn't bound the rules of logic." The contention from Maprovonsha172 that the remark wasn't argumentative and should therefore avoid that implication by calling it an insult. I have no idea how he would hope to support this contention without textual citations showing that critics, particularly those named in the section, have engaged in insult rather than argument. After a couple of exchanges, status of argumentation was no longer the issue. Maprovonsha172 argued that some ad hominems can be legitimate, although none of the hypothetical examples appear logically well-formed. Exemplary legitimate arguments would be of the form:
This argument is well-formed: you have a premise by which the subject stakes his credibility on a claim, which turns out to be false, and one thereafter ought to take further claims with prejudice against that person's credibility. This argument is fallacious:
This, however, is the form of ad hominem that Maprovonsha172 has used non-hypothetically in this argument. This form is fallacy: if the premise of an ad hominem conclusion is based on what does not logically follow, then the ad hominem is logically fallacious. We have another hypothetical example that has been argued repeated and is here being disputed as fallacy. Such an argument is of the form:
Here we accept the implication of charlatanism, but the premise is assumed and the conclusion implicit in that assumption. For the argument to be logically valid as an ad hominem, the deduction must follow; here it does not: the claim is introduced without any force of logical necessity, relying instead on the strength of an assertion that must be elsewhere be demonstrated. That the logic is not demonstrated here should be reason to regard it as suspect, yet this is the sort of example that we have been asked to accept as a "legitimate" ad hominem, not on the basis of a citation from the list of argumentation texts to which Maprovonsha172 has made reference but based on a discussion from an Internet bulletin board. If one were to accept this form of argument, the apparent effect would make "legitimate ad hominems" of what was previously agreed to be a non-argumentative insult.
Let's take some less hypothetical examples:
Like it or not, these are two extremely prominent examples of the sort of argument that has been used against Derrida. In the first example, we cannot rely on the second premise because it is unverifiable. In the second example, we cannot rely on the second premise because it is patently false.
I challenge Maprovonsha172 to show that where these entirely verifiable instances are not ad hominems or not fallacies. These are among the most public attacks on Derrida's reputation, and if Maprovonsha172 wishes to take recourse to matters of reputation, this is the evidence he must face of how the strongly negative reputation which he uses as a predicate was formed. I have attempted to generalise them by arguing that they all call effectively him a charlatan. The word appears in the article in quotation marks, but it should not because it is not being offered as a strict citation, which is misleading (although I am confident I can produce citations of this comment). The point here should be underlined: not that all of Derrida's critics are at this level, but that these extremely high-profile criticisms made by people who are generally regard as extremely prestigious philosophers have made embarrassingly sloppy attacks on him. If there is any evidence that these arguments are even vaguely valid, please raise it now.
This is not to say that this is the sum total of criticism of Derrida. If there is an analogy here, it is not to the Sokal hoax: it is to the way Derrida behaved toward de Man. In 1987 Derrida offered his refutation of criticisms of de Man's work that argued for the effective exile of de Man's work from the academy. In a late interview, he offered the following comment:
I did not chop the article up into sections, and, while generally objecting to the divisions that were made, I thought it poorly advised that such should be the sole content of the section. In particular, I still do not accept the division between "Derrida and his circle" and "Derrid and his critics" because, as Avital Ronell offers in "The Differends of Man," there have been some rather bruising arguments "within" deconstruction, most obviously between Derrida and Lyotard. I attempted to establish something of this with the remark: "Outside this circle Derrida's work has often been at least as controversial as within". The point I wanted to make is that we should set to one side the "dismissive critics," who have without exception done the job of discrediting themselves and should be characterised accordingly, from other critics who make more tempered claims about Derrida. Such critics need to included in the article, at least briefly. I tend to think that this project would be sufficiently expansive eventually to merit it it's own article. Breaking this out would allow us to give reasonable critics their due and identify unreasoned critics as such without any argument about bias in devoting virtually all of the section on Derrida's critics to the latter. Buffyg 5 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)
As long as everyone's alright with the current edit, to swear only one last time:
I don't give a shit. :)
Maprovonsha172 5 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)
Should only philosophers/philosophy students be allowed to post on philosophy pages?
Absolutely not. I myself am an MA philosophy student; but certainly would never have the audacity to assume that I am therefore provided license of authority over those who are not. To study philosophy does not necessary entail that you 'know what you are talking about'. In fact, I would seriously distrust anyone how who made that claim. Everybody is entitled to philosophy. But, that said, one of the most important lessons I have learned, having studied philosophy for sometime, is of the importance of self-criticism. Maprovonsha172 assumes far too much uncritically. Anyone should be allowed to post on philosophy pages and hopefully - in due time - the truth will out.
What's this all about? Does somebody here want Admin / Mediator help? Uncle Ed July 5, 2005 18:07 (UTC)
Well, my first suggestion is to avoid making any personal remarks yourself. Leave the admonishing to me and the other admins, okay? Just talk about Derrida here. And stay off the talk page of anyone who's not being nice to you. Try this for a week, and see what happens. You got nothing to lose, right? Uncle Ed July 7, 2005 00:06 (UTC)
Again, what's all this about? It appears that the original context that resulted in this RfC has been archived. I see various comments about arguments as to whether Derrida was a charlatan, but not the original statement. In the absence of the original statement, how am I expected to comment on whether an argument was ad hominem, otherwise fallacious, insulting, or anything?
Robert McClenon 21:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
There are two meanings of "ad hominem argument": the first involves attacking a view by attacking its holder (a typical, if condensed version would be to argue against vegetarianism on the grounds that Hitler was a vegetarian); the second involves attacking a view by bringinout a contradiction between it and another view held by one's interlocutor. (The former is always unacceptable, the latter is acceptable in certain specific circumstances.) The latter is the more common meaning wehn the term is used in philosophical contexts (probably because the former is so obviously fallacious).
Calling Derrida a charlatan isn't ad hominem unless the inference is drawn that his views are therefore false. In this case there's no indication that this is the case. It's not clear to me that it's an insult, either; it's a negative opinion, certainly, and in the right (or wrong) context it would be an insult — but to call it one here is needlessly emotive and strongly suggestive of a particular point of view.
The passage in question is:
"Outside this circle Derrida's work has often been at least as controversial as within; many analytic philosophers and scientists, some going so far as to regard it as pseudophilosophy, even engaging in ad hominem attacks against him, calling him a 'charlatan'."
The terms "ad hominem" and "attacks" are both mischaracterisations suggesting a clearly pro-Derrida PoV, and "insult" would be the same. This is independent of whether or not one agrees that he's a charlatan, etc. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 19:27, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
Now I think I have it. I think it would be more accurate simply to state that many analytical philosophers and scientists consider him a 'charlatan'. The statement that some scholars consider Derrida to be a charlatan is a neutral point of view. Some claims of charlatanism are ad hominem, and some are not. Just saying that some critics consider him a charlatan is sufficient.
Robert McClenon 21:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
It appears that this whole argument is moot. The original statement on the Derrida article has been edited. The reference to 'ad hominem' attack has been deleted. The statement that some of Derrida's critics consider him a charlatan, which is an accurate characterization of a POV, is still standing, and is a reasonable NPOV summary of his controversial nature.
The original article has been corrected reasonably.
There is no need for further argument that I see.
Robert McClenon 21:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I want to thank all the Admins that chimed in. I was quite pleasantly surprised when I return to this article and see how everything turned out with your intervention. I'm glad that "ad hominem attack," and even "insult," which I argued for as in any event more appropriate, were deemed "pro-Derrida mischaracterisations."
I also want to point out the irony in Buffyg requesting intervention to fix the passage, and they put it to more or less what I said in my last edit of the article. I said, "many analytic philosophers and scientists have considered him to be a "charlatan." That was changed of course, but later on an Admin clarifies, "I think it would be more accurate simply to state that many analytical philosophers and scientists consider him a 'charlatan'."
I do want to clear one more thing up if the Admins would be so kind. It has been argued extensively on this article that the "charlatan" remark is a circular ad hominem. It has been cleared up that it isn't an ad hominem, but is it circular? Sloat said, "So the "argument" is circular at best." I argued against that point, saying, "That's not a circular argument, that's just using logic." I'll repost the argument in question and why I think it isn't circular:
So, is it circular?
Thanks again for your level-headed mediation and your fixing the article. Maprovonsha172 15:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Mediation or not it's good that we're clearing things up. I would still like an answer regarding the circularity remark, Buffy; and while your feedback is appreciated, without any prejudice to the substance of your remarks, I think we've heard you on the issue. You called for the Admins to come in, why don't we hear what they have to say? Maprovonsha172 23:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Well then I'm waiting for community comment on my circularity question. Maprovonsha172 02:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
As I've been asked to comment, here are my thoughts. "x is a charlatan, therefore what x says should be taken with a grain of salt" isn't circular (because you can't go from the consequent to the antecedent), but it is a tautology (because by definition what any charlatan says should be taken with a grain of salt; a charlatan is someone who professes knowledge or expertise that he doesn't have).
The only exception to that would be, for example, if x were a medical charlatan and he offered advice on the best way to get from Athens to Larissa; one might still be less than completely trusting (someone dishonest in one area might be dishonest in another), but the charlatanry in medicine doesn't logically imply charlatanry in directions-giving. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
This subpage for the Derrida discussion page has been linked for RfC. 5 July 2005 15:19 (UTC)
An ad hominem attack is when one attacks the (wo)man, not her/his argument. There is a difference between an argumentum ad hominem and an insult. An insult doesn't imply argumentation, and it isn't bound the rules of logic. The following is a passage from this article:
This isn't an example of an ad hominem attack, it's an example of an insult. -- Maprovonsha172 02:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Now you're throwing around abuse sloppily. Whilst speaking of misusing terminology, please justify your repeated insistence on labeling those who don't agree with you "postmodernists." And might we note that we may preserve a narrow definition without accepting the usage you seem intent on mandating? You've not acknowledged my previous remark about the logic of the remark. Could we please leave the article reverted until we can have a reasonable discussion on this? I haven't the sense that we've had any discussion on the matter when you've not so much as acknowledged my request to set aside editing until we have some degree of consensus or spoken to the furthe change I've made to accomodate your objection without creating what I take to be an incorrect assessment ("a logical fallacy is assumed where none appear:" exactly what materials have you reviewed to justify this assertion?). -- Buffyg 10:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I gather you've not been reading my responses, including the remark: "I see the following statement uncontested where you have asked elsewhere for agreement to what you have laid out above: 'Well, if premise 2 of your argument is true then the conclusion would follow. That would be a legitimate use of the ad hominem because the truth of P2 does have a bearing on the truth of the conclusion.'" I could have just as easily cited the following remark at the end of the thread: "Now you just have to prove the premises." The distinction is not simply about logical validity, so you have to demonstrate more than that: you have to show that there is reason to accept the premise for conclusions drawn from it not to be fallacious. -- Buffyg 30 June 2005 08:03 (UTC)
I've tried to be as nice and as patient as I can be but you all argue about things you don't know much about. I'm reminded of Alan Sokal's book Fashionable Nonsense in which he showed the postmodernists use scientific terms of which they don't know their meanings (and yes, Buffy, I know Derrida wasn‘t a target of the book‘s criticism but just because he didn‘t use or misuse scientific terms doesn‘t mean he wasn‘t a charlatan).
"Your cherry picking definitions; as you well know, the word means someone who practices trickery, who makes shit up." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant "You're", even then, it isn't much of an accusation. "As I well know"? I looked it up and that's what came up.
"So the "argument" is circular at best." You continue to defend Derrida despite the facts. Do you even know what "circular" means? Are you a philosopher/philosophy student? Well I am a philosophy student. I know what I am talking about. A circular argument is set up like the following:
(A-->B) (B-->C) (C-->A)
You cannot call the following circular because it (obvious to anyone who knows what they are talking about) plainly isn't:
P1:Jacques Derrida wrote about literature and philosophy.
P2:Jacques Derrida is a charlatan.
C:I should take what he wrote about literature and philosophy at a grain of salt.
That's not a circular argument, that's just using logic. Anyone who knows what they are talking about would know that. It isn't circular because even if "I should take him/her at a grain of salt" were the exact definition of a charlatan (which it hardly is), a charlatan isn't the only type of person you should take at a grain of salt. A rage-aholic or a bitter enemy or a sociopath could be other possibilities, so it is all not perfectly symmetrical, and therefore not circular overall. A charlatan has specific modes and motivations; it is not the only path to lying. Moreover, lying is not the only path to misdirection , and only the milder charge of misdirection is needed to raise the cautionary grain-of-salt flag. Even if it were tautological (which it isn't), it wouldn't necessarily be circular. Here is an example of a non-circular tautology:
A=B, so B=A.
I quite honestly don't mean to sound malicious, but if you guys knew what you were talking about, we never would have had this discussion. In philosophy, we deductively infer truths from premises. The above argument concluding that we should take Derrida at a grain of salt is logically valid, if (if you dispute the premises) unsound. It is neither an example of the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem nor the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. There is no disputing that. To say, "Nothing misleading at all about calling it that," regarding calling something an "ad hominem" when it isn't an illegitimate ad hominem is almost certainly purposefully misleading spoken by anyone at all knowledgeable about formal reasoning. Obviously, there are widespread and deeply-held misconceptions about formal reasoning, and if it is so difficult to explain to other wikipedians imagine how hard it would be for the student looking up information on Wikipedia. I'm beginning to wonder if he should trust us enough to do so. Wikipedia runs the risk of misinforming thousands of people when they refuse to put what is actually correct in their articles. This isn't truth by consensus, or it least it shouldn't be.
I'm reminded of Harry Frankfurt's essay On Bullshit, in which he lamented the fact that in a democracy, everyone feels as though they should have an opinion on EVERYTHING, even things they aren't qualified to have an opinion on. The result is the mass-acceptance of bullshit, and the great success of Bullshitters. I fear this may be happening to Wikipedia. This is democratizing academia, and bullshit-promotion has ensued. To say that calling Derrida a charlatan an “ad hominem” implies (to laypeople) that it is logically fallacious; I have shown that it is neither an example of circular reasoning nor the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem. “Insult” is a better word; it is accurate, unpretentious, and carries a lighter (and more appropriate) connotation than the (in this case) misleading technical philosophical term, "ad hominem." So I am going to change it back to "insult," and since I have shown that (to anyone that knows what we are talking about) "ad hominem" isn't suitable here because it is misleading, and "insult" would be just as accurate but even more so as it is not misleading, anyone changing it back is only doing so to attack Derrida's detractors. It sounds bad (for Derrida's critics) if under the heading "Derrida and his critics" we begin by accusing them of logical fallacies. I'm not saying all ad hominems are logically fallacious (a point I hope everyone here understands) but we can’t expect the average layperson to know that. And isn't that who we are trying to inform? As it stands, this article serves to misinform. Like Frankfurt's criticism of the democratic attitude to have an opinion about everything, damn the experts; Wikipedia is a democratization of information and the consequences have led to the same attitude - damn the experts. Maybe it would be better if we only write about what we know, instead of trying to get in on everything, or at least, what we don't know. I don't try to write about anything I'm not knowledgeable, and it seems commonsense to me for everyone to do the same. I'm not going to argue about calculus or German poetry, if you don't know about philosophy don't argue about philosophy. So, as I said, I'm going to change it back, and if you want to (as you threatened) Buffy, go ahead and involve an administrator. I happen to be right in this discussion and I’m concerned this all only serves to make Wikipedia look bad, putting patent bullshit up on our articles (and this isn't the only article). I've heard people say that they wouldn't trust Wikipedia as a source, and I tried to tell them that we change things when they aren't right (which still of course wouldn't help the person getting bad information from an article before it's corrected), but now I'm beginning to agree with them. Maprovonsha172 1 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)
How about instead of saying "tarring," you point out one false accusation. I think I've presented a pretty good case: you don't know what the hell you're talking about and yet you persist, for the only apparent reason that you wish to discredit Derrida's detractors in his article.
"Again, an edit without waiting for reply." Yeah, well, the article ought to be as truthful as it can be, and if that means changing your edit that's just what it means.
And what do you mean by "invoking Sokal and postmodernism"? Invoking? Did you even read what I said? Here's exactly what I said in case you didn't read it the first time:
You see, I said "I'm reminded" of Sokal's book because your arguments invite comparison with those postmodernist writings he tore apart in his book. It invites comparison because the postmodernists used technical scientific terminology they apparently didn't understand, you're using technical philosophical terminology you apparently don't understand.
My point is that everyone knows what insult means, and as Conf said, insult carries a very negative connotation, so why not call it an insult? It is an insult. It is also a legitimate ad hominem, but to laypeople a legitimate ad hominem implies truthfulness and "ad hominem" implies falsity. Wikipedia is not written for technical people, it is written for everyone. As I said about Frankfurt's essay, On Bullshit, it is this democratization of information that has led to the low quality of many of wikipedia's articles. Wikipedia lets anyone write anything, sometimes patent nonsense is removes, othertimes many people agree with it and it is therefore truth by consensus. That is a logical fallacy. It is argumentum ad populum to think that the majority knows what is right. And if every other Wikipedian agrees with you every other Wikipedian is wrong. In a democracy we should have have liberty, but liberty must be restrained so one doesn't hinder a neighbor's liberty. Perhaps we should have permits on Wikipedia, allowing some users to write on topics they are versed in. A permit for classical music, a permit for psychology, and a permit for philosophy. As it is now, it is absurd for people who don't know all that much about philosophy to be making grandoise philosophical claims ("this argument is circular," "that's an ad hominem") when they clearly don't know what they are talking about.
Yes Bertrand Russell is my favorite philosopher, but I never defend him irrationally. He is not without error. As a matter of fact I've never written anything on his article or talk page. But you obviously have a thing for Derrida, and you defend him irrationally, as I said; "despite the facts." You want to discredit his detractors so right in the begining of that part of the article you accuse them of logical fallacies where there are none. You haven't presented good arguments, on the contrary you and your sympathizer Sloat have shown that you don't have a rudimentary understanding of formal reasoning (or should I say one you get from only reading the wikipedia article), though you both will defend Derrida to the teeth invoking your limited knowledge of formal reasoning. I say, only philosophers and philosophy students should edit philosophy pages, who's with me? Maprovonsha172 4 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)
Should only philosophers/philosophy students be allowed to post on philosophy pages?
As it is, Buffy, you're wrong, I've shown you're wrong, and instead of answering to my arguments put forth in the first post under this new heading, you continue with your card-stacking (or as you like to say, cherry-picking) bullshit. I now understand why people don't trust wikipedia. Maprovonsha172 4 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)
It's almost laughable how wikipedia works. You say we aren't supposed to edit the article until we've reached an agreement, yet you change the article. Do you think the rules don't apply to you, or do you just make up rules as they suit you? I'm going to change it back, and you can't say I'm going against any "rule" because if it only applies to me it isn't really a rule. Maprovonsha172 4 July 2005 20:14 (UTC)
The current edit seems perfect, containing neither "insult" nor "ad hominem," indeed revealing both as unnecessary. I fail to forsee how anyone could find it problematic in any way. I hope it is to everyone's liking and we can put this one to rest. Maprovonsha172 4 July 2005 20:36 (UTC)
First, I am fine with these edits; I think this is a lot of garbage to go through over one word. But I have to reply to many of your comments which are well beyond this one word. First, I am a university professor of communication studies, with a focus on rhetoric, and yes I do have training in philosophy and formal logic; as I said, one of the courses I teach is argumentation, and I use the Damer book Attacking Faulty Reasoning, which you cited approvingly early in this discussion. I also attend and contribute to national and international conferences on argumentation and philosophy, and I have been working in this field for well over a decade. This is all to respond to your nitpicking about qualifications -- no, I am not a "philosophy student," but that does not mean, as you imply, that I do not "know what I'm talking about." I have read Derrida, Searle, Austin, Eco, Wittgenstein, and even your hero Bertrand Russell (yawn), as well as the crap by Sokal that cannot be called "philosophy" or even criticism in any realistic sense. And I'll be frank about it -- I think Sokal is full of it, I don't think he understands half of the theorists he criticizes, and, as you admit, he says nothing that has any relevance to Derrida's work; Derrida is not a "postmodernist" in any case.
Finally your comments about logic are ludicrous here, and you would not likely do well in my argumentation class with such claims. In your example -- P1 is totally irrelevant, and P2 and C are basically the same claim reworded. It's basically an argument by definition. I'm not sure why you throw in P1 -- prob ably just to make it look like part of the claim, but it is not. And as you are well aware, the term charlatan means one who cannot be believed. It is an insult, yes, and in the context of dismissing Derrida's (or anyone else's) arguments, it is an ad hominem. Instead of, say, engaging the arguments made by Derrida (or whoever), you attack the man -- ignore his arguments, you claim; he is just a charlatan, one given to making things up. This is an ad hominem as any of the books on reasoning that you yourself cite will tell you. Your claim that this is not an ad hominem seems to be pure stubbornness. And you yourself resort to faulty reasoning -- telling me I don't know what I'm talking about and claiming some kind of authority because you took a freshman philosophy class or whatever. I defy you to quote a passage from one of your logic texts that explains that this kind of insult is a "legitimate" argument. It is clearly an ad hominem, though I could care less whether that claim is made on wikipedia. What I think is really bizarre is that this is for you the main point of entry into an anti-derrida position. Obviously you don't like Derrida's work, but instead of actually discussing it, you prefer to make a big deal out of whether calling him a charlatan is an ad hominem. It's quite telling, when all is said and done. -- csloat 4 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)
"Finally your comments about logic are ludicrous here, and you would not likely do well in my argumentation class with such claims."
Professor or not, you were the one that said something was circular when it wasn't.
As for the ad hominem issue, I'm not saying it isn't ad hominem, I'm saying it's no not the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem because it follows.
"First, I am fine with these edits; I think this is a lot of garbage to go through over one word."
I couldn't agree with you more, my edit doesn't promote or attack either side. Maprovonsha172 4 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to grant any compromise with Maprovonsha172 on this issue. He is plainly wrong on the premises he has offered. Saying that this is hair-splitting is generous. If anything, we're trying to settle the issue just to stop the argument here, which has definitely dragged on. I see even less reason to compromise with someone who is willing to argue about the validity of ad hominem debate and logical formalism while making personal attacks, using fallacious ad hominem argument, using profanity, failing to demonstrate a strong command of formal argument, and admitting that he has done no research to try to review the texts cited in the article whose characterisation is in question.
We started out with the following remark: "An ad hominem attack is when one attacks the (wo)man, not her/his argument. There is a difference between an argumentum ad hominem and an insult. An insult doesn't imply argumentation, and it isn't bound the rules of logic." The contention from Maprovonsha172 that the remark wasn't argumentative and should therefore avoid that implication by calling it an insult. I have no idea how he would hope to support this contention without textual citations showing that critics, particularly those named in the section, have engaged in insult rather than argument. After a couple of exchanges, status of argumentation was no longer the issue. Maprovonsha172 argued that some ad hominems can be legitimate, although none of the hypothetical examples appear logically well-formed. Exemplary legitimate arguments would be of the form:
This argument is well-formed: you have a premise by which the subject stakes his credibility on a claim, which turns out to be false, and one thereafter ought to take further claims with prejudice against that person's credibility. This argument is fallacious:
This, however, is the form of ad hominem that Maprovonsha172 has used non-hypothetically in this argument. This form is fallacy: if the premise of an ad hominem conclusion is based on what does not logically follow, then the ad hominem is logically fallacious. We have another hypothetical example that has been argued repeated and is here being disputed as fallacy. Such an argument is of the form:
Here we accept the implication of charlatanism, but the premise is assumed and the conclusion implicit in that assumption. For the argument to be logically valid as an ad hominem, the deduction must follow; here it does not: the claim is introduced without any force of logical necessity, relying instead on the strength of an assertion that must be elsewhere be demonstrated. That the logic is not demonstrated here should be reason to regard it as suspect, yet this is the sort of example that we have been asked to accept as a "legitimate" ad hominem, not on the basis of a citation from the list of argumentation texts to which Maprovonsha172 has made reference but based on a discussion from an Internet bulletin board. If one were to accept this form of argument, the apparent effect would make "legitimate ad hominems" of what was previously agreed to be a non-argumentative insult.
Let's take some less hypothetical examples:
Like it or not, these are two extremely prominent examples of the sort of argument that has been used against Derrida. In the first example, we cannot rely on the second premise because it is unverifiable. In the second example, we cannot rely on the second premise because it is patently false.
I challenge Maprovonsha172 to show that where these entirely verifiable instances are not ad hominems or not fallacies. These are among the most public attacks on Derrida's reputation, and if Maprovonsha172 wishes to take recourse to matters of reputation, this is the evidence he must face of how the strongly negative reputation which he uses as a predicate was formed. I have attempted to generalise them by arguing that they all call effectively him a charlatan. The word appears in the article in quotation marks, but it should not because it is not being offered as a strict citation, which is misleading (although I am confident I can produce citations of this comment). The point here should be underlined: not that all of Derrida's critics are at this level, but that these extremely high-profile criticisms made by people who are generally regard as extremely prestigious philosophers have made embarrassingly sloppy attacks on him. If there is any evidence that these arguments are even vaguely valid, please raise it now.
This is not to say that this is the sum total of criticism of Derrida. If there is an analogy here, it is not to the Sokal hoax: it is to the way Derrida behaved toward de Man. In 1987 Derrida offered his refutation of criticisms of de Man's work that argued for the effective exile of de Man's work from the academy. In a late interview, he offered the following comment:
I did not chop the article up into sections, and, while generally objecting to the divisions that were made, I thought it poorly advised that such should be the sole content of the section. In particular, I still do not accept the division between "Derrida and his circle" and "Derrid and his critics" because, as Avital Ronell offers in "The Differends of Man," there have been some rather bruising arguments "within" deconstruction, most obviously between Derrida and Lyotard. I attempted to establish something of this with the remark: "Outside this circle Derrida's work has often been at least as controversial as within". The point I wanted to make is that we should set to one side the "dismissive critics," who have without exception done the job of discrediting themselves and should be characterised accordingly, from other critics who make more tempered claims about Derrida. Such critics need to included in the article, at least briefly. I tend to think that this project would be sufficiently expansive eventually to merit it it's own article. Breaking this out would allow us to give reasonable critics their due and identify unreasoned critics as such without any argument about bias in devoting virtually all of the section on Derrida's critics to the latter. Buffyg 5 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)
As long as everyone's alright with the current edit, to swear only one last time:
I don't give a shit. :)
Maprovonsha172 5 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)
Should only philosophers/philosophy students be allowed to post on philosophy pages?
Absolutely not. I myself am an MA philosophy student; but certainly would never have the audacity to assume that I am therefore provided license of authority over those who are not. To study philosophy does not necessary entail that you 'know what you are talking about'. In fact, I would seriously distrust anyone how who made that claim. Everybody is entitled to philosophy. But, that said, one of the most important lessons I have learned, having studied philosophy for sometime, is of the importance of self-criticism. Maprovonsha172 assumes far too much uncritically. Anyone should be allowed to post on philosophy pages and hopefully - in due time - the truth will out.
What's this all about? Does somebody here want Admin / Mediator help? Uncle Ed July 5, 2005 18:07 (UTC)
Well, my first suggestion is to avoid making any personal remarks yourself. Leave the admonishing to me and the other admins, okay? Just talk about Derrida here. And stay off the talk page of anyone who's not being nice to you. Try this for a week, and see what happens. You got nothing to lose, right? Uncle Ed July 7, 2005 00:06 (UTC)
Again, what's all this about? It appears that the original context that resulted in this RfC has been archived. I see various comments about arguments as to whether Derrida was a charlatan, but not the original statement. In the absence of the original statement, how am I expected to comment on whether an argument was ad hominem, otherwise fallacious, insulting, or anything?
Robert McClenon 21:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
There are two meanings of "ad hominem argument": the first involves attacking a view by attacking its holder (a typical, if condensed version would be to argue against vegetarianism on the grounds that Hitler was a vegetarian); the second involves attacking a view by bringinout a contradiction between it and another view held by one's interlocutor. (The former is always unacceptable, the latter is acceptable in certain specific circumstances.) The latter is the more common meaning wehn the term is used in philosophical contexts (probably because the former is so obviously fallacious).
Calling Derrida a charlatan isn't ad hominem unless the inference is drawn that his views are therefore false. In this case there's no indication that this is the case. It's not clear to me that it's an insult, either; it's a negative opinion, certainly, and in the right (or wrong) context it would be an insult — but to call it one here is needlessly emotive and strongly suggestive of a particular point of view.
The passage in question is:
"Outside this circle Derrida's work has often been at least as controversial as within; many analytic philosophers and scientists, some going so far as to regard it as pseudophilosophy, even engaging in ad hominem attacks against him, calling him a 'charlatan'."
The terms "ad hominem" and "attacks" are both mischaracterisations suggesting a clearly pro-Derrida PoV, and "insult" would be the same. This is independent of whether or not one agrees that he's a charlatan, etc. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 19:27, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
Now I think I have it. I think it would be more accurate simply to state that many analytical philosophers and scientists consider him a 'charlatan'. The statement that some scholars consider Derrida to be a charlatan is a neutral point of view. Some claims of charlatanism are ad hominem, and some are not. Just saying that some critics consider him a charlatan is sufficient.
Robert McClenon 21:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
It appears that this whole argument is moot. The original statement on the Derrida article has been edited. The reference to 'ad hominem' attack has been deleted. The statement that some of Derrida's critics consider him a charlatan, which is an accurate characterization of a POV, is still standing, and is a reasonable NPOV summary of his controversial nature.
The original article has been corrected reasonably.
There is no need for further argument that I see.
Robert McClenon 21:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I want to thank all the Admins that chimed in. I was quite pleasantly surprised when I return to this article and see how everything turned out with your intervention. I'm glad that "ad hominem attack," and even "insult," which I argued for as in any event more appropriate, were deemed "pro-Derrida mischaracterisations."
I also want to point out the irony in Buffyg requesting intervention to fix the passage, and they put it to more or less what I said in my last edit of the article. I said, "many analytic philosophers and scientists have considered him to be a "charlatan." That was changed of course, but later on an Admin clarifies, "I think it would be more accurate simply to state that many analytical philosophers and scientists consider him a 'charlatan'."
I do want to clear one more thing up if the Admins would be so kind. It has been argued extensively on this article that the "charlatan" remark is a circular ad hominem. It has been cleared up that it isn't an ad hominem, but is it circular? Sloat said, "So the "argument" is circular at best." I argued against that point, saying, "That's not a circular argument, that's just using logic." I'll repost the argument in question and why I think it isn't circular:
So, is it circular?
Thanks again for your level-headed mediation and your fixing the article. Maprovonsha172 15:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Mediation or not it's good that we're clearing things up. I would still like an answer regarding the circularity remark, Buffy; and while your feedback is appreciated, without any prejudice to the substance of your remarks, I think we've heard you on the issue. You called for the Admins to come in, why don't we hear what they have to say? Maprovonsha172 23:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Well then I'm waiting for community comment on my circularity question. Maprovonsha172 02:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
As I've been asked to comment, here are my thoughts. "x is a charlatan, therefore what x says should be taken with a grain of salt" isn't circular (because you can't go from the consequent to the antecedent), but it is a tautology (because by definition what any charlatan says should be taken with a grain of salt; a charlatan is someone who professes knowledge or expertise that he doesn't have).
The only exception to that would be, for example, if x were a medical charlatan and he offered advice on the best way to get from Athens to Larissa; one might still be less than completely trusting (someone dishonest in one area might be dishonest in another), but the charlatanry in medicine doesn't logically imply charlatanry in directions-giving. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)