[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Peter's logical fallacies
email@example.com (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>Well, it sure seems like my "bandwagon" is a bandwagon of one, as not
>much support for my research has been evident in these ngs. Yet I do have
>friendly people writing to me privately. They tell me that they are
>intimidated from posting publicly because of fierce opponents who
>predominate in the ngs. I fully understand their concerns.
>I will not be intimidated by the gangs of dogmatists who clearly want to
>stifle all discussion of these important matters.
You don't even come close to getting it, do you. "Fierce attacks"??
"Gangs of dogmatists who want to stifle all discussions"?? Have you ever
been to a real scholarly conference in your life? The criticisms and
challenges to your ideas and propositions on these ngs pales in
comparrison to what you'd be subjected to at a professional meeting.
To date, your posts have taken on an interesting polarity. 1).What
you post is the Truth, and those you cite are Authorities. What others
post in response, though, is a Lie, and their citations are cheap Appeals
to Authority. 2). Challenges of other peoples' reactions/ideas on your
part are Logical and Informative Responses, while challenges of your ideas
are Ad Hominem Attacks by Gangs of Dogmatists.
If you want to propose an idea and present it and your evidence on
the ngs, fine; it spurs discussion. But, when you don't have everyone
goose-stepping to your party line, quit whining. Challenges to your ideas,
your research. your methodology, etc., are all a part of the game. The
mark of surety of your ideas and research is to rise above the attacks,
and present solid information to refute the challenges.
Randal Allison, Ph.D.
--If you can't be happy naturally, be unnaturally happy.