Comments on: Myers vs. Pigliucci

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 04:18:57 +0000

H.H., no thank you. I’m more than aware of the meaning of the term, you twit.

… actually, that’s a fairly good write up.

By: H.H.

H.H. — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 03:54:35 +0000

Sure, an insult is not a logical fallacy, but saying that the thing taht was insulting is the reason for the …. oh, never mind.

Yeah, just read this and all will become clear.
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:23:48 +0000

I KNEW you were going to say this stupid shit, you poopy face.

Sure, an insult is not a logical fallacy, but saying that the thing taht was insulting is the reason for the …. oh, never mind.

By: Virgil Samms

Virgil Samms — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:16:46 +0000

Pigliucci was correct in his use of ad hominem.

Clearly not. Even if ad hominem was used as a general synonym for insult, Pig-face explicitly and parenthetically, with an exclamation point, labeled it a logical fallacy. An insult is not a logical fallacy, nor even a logical argument, it is an insult. A logical fallacy, you are obviously too dim to understand, is a misuse of logic in which the argument does not support the conclusion.
I forgive you though, since I understand that your recently acquired addiction to pain-killers is interfering with your ability to think clearly.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:09:45 +0000

Good point.

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:16:05 +0000

I always thought this particular tone argument was, “The people I’m talking to or about have no interest in coming to an agreement with me, so being nice or mean isn’t going to make any difference to them. It matters to me because invective can be eye-opening for third parties.” I get that reasoning. I don’t think I understand the parallel argument for the irrelevance of tone when dealing with people/organizations you might want to work with.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:59:52 +0000

But I think PZ and the commenters there rely too heavily on name calling. It’s become a sort of verbal masturbation for them. If you complain about their tone, they accuse you of having no substance. It doesn’t occur to them that you’ve walked away from the discussion because they’re being assholes. They declare victory and carry on in their circle-jerk.

This is a TRANE REK of a comment! You are in so much trouble! I’m telling!

…

If only his commenters were one tenth of the man himself. Well, many are. But so, so many are …. not.

By: itzac

itzac — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:55:42 +0000

I agree with PZ regarding the whole myth issue, but I think Massimo has a point regarding PZ’s use of invective.

I don’t generally have a problem with invective along side argument, and PZ certainly has a way with words. And I think it’s only ad hom if you use invective in place of argument, which is not something I would accuse PZ of.

And I agree with you, Greg, that if someone says something sufficiently stupid, it’s perfectly legitimate to dismiss their position.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:54:39 +0000

NEB: Are you calling Pigliucci irrational? Sounds like an ad hominem attack to me!!!

I mean, I know you are saying his actions are irrational, but who does irrational things but an irrational person? Especially habitually.

By: NewEnglandBob

NewEnglandBob — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:51:10 +0000

I have been disappointed in everything I have read so far from De Dora and I think Pigliucci has been irrationally attacking Myers and Coyne, even before this De Dora stuff.

I am solidly behind aggressive ‘new’ atheism, which I feel has been responsible for tremendous progress in making religious people leave religion, embrace rational thought, secularism and separation of church and state over the last several years. I am against accommodationism (faitheism).