[Buddha-l] Prominent Neobuddhist proposes religion based blacklisting for government jobs

[Alberto Todeschini]

Richard Hayes wrote:

>> Copi's treatment is now obsolete.
> 
> Somebody should communicate that to the people who write college  
> textbooks on reasoning and critical thinking. In all the texts I have  
> used to teach that subject in recent years, argumentum ad hominem is  
> still listed among the informal fallacies, with warnings that using it  
> weakens one's overall argument.

Copi's book, because of its extraordinary popularity and longevity is
one of the primary sources criticized in the literature on fallacies.

I offered to give you references to works by many argumentation
theorists, logicians, philosophers, etc. on why the standard treatment
is deeply problematic but with a juvenile reply (see below) you refuse
on principle to pursue it further. As far as I'm concerned, you can go
right ahead and cling to your outdated beliefs about fallacies.

> I've never seen any, except for the one's Dan has mentioned, namely,  
> that of being an expert witness in a court of law.

There are plenty of other cases. Look up the literature and you'll find
dozens of examples. Oh wait, you refuse to do that.

>> So to make an ad hominem is not
>> ipso facto to commit a fallacy.
> 
> I am not sure anyone was making that claim. 

And I didn't say that anyone did either. I apologize if I gave that
impression.

>> (I can provide some bibliographical details off-list if you want)
> 
> No thanks. Anyone who writes that ad hominem argumentation is not  
> fallacious is ipso facto not worth reading.

I cannot possibly offer counterarguments for such elegant, tightly
argued and sensibly held position.

Here's the deal. I give you just one reference and in exchange I promise
I won't bother you anymore:

Brinton, Alan. "The Ad Hominem," in _Fallacies_ edited by H.V. Hansen
and Rober C. Pinto.

Best,

Alberto Todeschini