You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: STEEM: The Disproportionate Power Balance with Downvotes

in OCD5 years ago

It simply asserts that in SOME cases, presumably if the subject at hand is specifically about a person's history and or personal choices, data relevant to such an inquiry CANNOT be considered off-limits.

It explains that an ad hominem isn't fallacious if the position the other has implicates their character/ motivations etc.

It's not about Positive or Negative or such value statements, it's about Correct or Incorrect reasoning, True or False argumentation.

You shouldn't believe someone just because they're a doctor.

You shouldn't disbelieve someone just because they're a commie.

I agree, claims should be examined by themselves but if the creed of the Doctor is to always obfuscate or lie/deceive then it would be difficult not to believe them, the same creed-o would dismiss the commie if that were the case.

Sort:  

I agree, claims should be examined by themselves

Well that's encouraging.

It explains that an ad hominem isn't fallacious if the position the other has implicates their character/ motivations etc.

The only "problem" being that you can never know "their character" or "motivations" etc, due to your EPISTEMOLOGICAL LIMITS.

And even the most morally repulsive, malevolent person can still make a perfectly valid logically sound statement.

Their moral repulsiveness and malevolence do not magically invalidate their logic.

And even the most morally repulsive, malevolent person can still make a perfectly valid logically sound statement.

Their moral repulsiveness and malevolence do not magically invalidate their logic.

It's not about their logic holding consistency, internally or otherwise, but about their Ability to characterize certain things that their very character will undoubtedly taint or cast doubt on. That's what I think you're being obtuse about, you think that it's a matter of pure Logic or Reasoning, but it's a matter of Precision, Accuracy, and above all else a matter of Ability to Judge Correctly, not just to judge Logically.

The only "problem" being that you can never know "their character" or "motivations" etc, due to your EPISTEMOLOGICAL LIMITS.

Nonsense. I don't need to "know" their character. I only need to Judge them based on what I know about them, however limited that may be, I don't need to know Everything to surmise their character, it might be more accurate but it can be done accurately without considering everything.

I only need to Judge them based on what I know about them,

I admire your faith in sample-bias.

...above all else a matter of Ability to Judge Correctly, not just to judge Logically.

Please teach me to "Judge Correctly" without logic.