please allow me to explain some details before you reply.
a “respected” doper said:
he also said:
another one said:
[quote]
She can’t argue any position without demonizing her opponents.[/qoute]
i guess this, in a way, also falls under: “he begins with the names of his approvers”
is it correct to assume a statement is true because of who spoke it?
if not, should you call upon the names of your approvers in your speech?
my point is: ignoring documentation and copyright laws, should you name your approver?
should not the words of the approver be enough if they are true?
using my quotes above, does it matter if i name the one who said what i quoted?
the following examples are an illustration, not truth:
adolf hitler said: “religion is a tool that can be used for manipulation”.
mother theresa said: “religion is a tool that can be used for manipulation”.
joe smith said: “religion is a tool that can be used for manipulation”.
true that you would understand theese statements differently based on who spoke them. but should you do that?
should you not base your understanding on the statement itself? you should not assume the speaker knows that you know who he is, right?
i ask this because it is painful to see how “good” logic fails because of bad support.
It’s an element of classical rhetoric (you do quote Socrates, after all) called “Ethos.” According to my old 6E of Holman’s, it is used to reflect the character of the speaker in order to make his or her argument more convincing. By using respected or authoritative sources as support–whether of the argument or the speaker–one can bolster the idea that he or she should be listened to.
i mentioned (socrates) not to support my speech, but to protect copywrite laws and stuff like that, i had to say (socrates) because the last time i quoted from the phaedrus people confused “phaedrus” with a poster named the same.
There’s also the following fallacy, which isn’t directly related to the OP but may also be involved…
I believe that there are some subjects where the approval of an authority in that field does indicate that the person has (at the very least) spoken intelligently on the subject in the past. Althought it’s no guarantee for future statements, and I think there are many subjects of “opinion” where such support is not relevant to the argument, it can be a useful rule of thumb.
Actually, it’s both. As mattk points out, the appeal to authority is a common fallacy used in argumentative writing to support an otherwise superable argument; however, in persuasive speaking or writing, reference to one’s supporters is a valued and appropriate means of making the listener/reader aware of the base of support for one’s propositions, and of the “school” of thought from which one is speaking. In the specific example cited in the OP, the speaker names “respected” opponents who favor the speaker’s own approach to debate in order to contrast his [ good ] style with another poster’s [ bad ] style of discourse. If the speaker had listed various supporters in order to try and “prove” a proposition as true, then this would’ve been a fallacy; however, the poster was merely using the list to illustrate a point, and as such was employing good rhetorical technique.
Personally, I think you started out with the same device you are argueing against. I find it pretty funny. You could have easily avoided this by paraphrasing the passage instead of quoting it.
Hell…
You could have even just skipped STARTING by mentioning Socrates. (first line even:)) You fit what you described to a “T.” Other than this irony, I like the points you make.
One thing I think you might be missing is the Intention of the speaker. I think you are trying to say that the intention is irrelevant, but I think you need to put a statement into perspective to judge it by more than just a stand alone sentence.
I guess I also think you may be leaving out the integrity of the writer. If you know a particular writer is prone to twist statements, misrepresent facts and flat out lie, then it is a lot easier to just dismiss anything they write since it is such a hassle to wade through their lies. In a real debate, I think you need to have a reasonable expectation that the person you are debating with at least believes they are presenting the truth.
BTW…
If I read you right you are suggesting that Stoidela has some good logic going, but she is not the most persuasive debater. As a side note, could you point me to where Stoidela uses good logic?
how is that different?
no matter if the intention of the speaker is to prove or illustrate a point, he does list various supporters.
the listener should be able to conclude from a given statement if it is true or not, no matter if a supporter “listed” or not. the listener should not have to accept a statement because it includes; “…like albert einstein did!”, or something similar.
there is of course a differance between theories and facts. if you are citing facts you do so matter of factly, but that is not the issue here, it is “persuasive speaking”.
notice here! this is a direct quote from mattk, i do not have to mention that because it does not matter to the point i am trying to make. it does not in any way illustrate my point any further than already said in the words themselves.
when you are using facts, you have to quote correctly, thats why i mentioned socrates in the OP.
the intention of the speaker should be clear and easily accessible through the words used to form the statement, not by who spoke the words.
granted of course that different people pick different words or approaches to a subject, but thats a different matter.
i have to disagree with that. true, one writer might lie more than the other, but if you call the writer up on his lies they will always falter.
no, i never said anything that had anything to do with the person you mentioned. true that the quotes you are referring to in the OP are about that person.
by saying this you have become the living example of what i am trying to say in the OP. you are blinded by the belived fact that the person you mention can not use good logic.
you are supposed to think about the logic itself, not the person presenting it.
Sorry…please try again.
You made quite a leap from what I said to the conclusion you drew. In fact, I may even be tempted to say that you projected a believed fact onto me in order to fulfill your personal expectations of what you would expect me to do. I made no comment on about Stoidela. I only asked for a little background on this thread.
If this thread has taught me anything so far, it is that we are all pretty guilty of the tactic disdained in the op. (even you bjOrn:))
But it’s not a bad tactic to be “guilty” of, if used properly. F’rinstance, if I were to support an assertion I made regarding common interpretations of the 2nd Amendment by citing references quoted by Freedom2, my name-dropping would be perfectly acceptable in that context. However, if I name David B as a supporter while arguing with bj0rn about reindeer harnesses, my appeal to authority has been pointless.
An appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the person appealed to is not really an authority on the subject.
I think it is ok to consider the source of an argument when you evaluate that argument. I can evalutate a statement based on how truthful/reliable I judge the person to be. If Stephen Hawking says black holes emit radiation, I’m gonna give that a lot more weight than I would if Moe Scyzlak says black holes emit radiation. However, if I want to know how to make a Flaming Homer, Moe would be a better authority than Stephen.
And if someone is a known liar, one can give their statements much less weight without being forced to check every one individually.
“Gee, the last 20 times you told me there was a leprechaun in the basement, you locked the door and turned off the lights and wouldn’t let me out till Mom got back home.”
There is a difference between offering the statements of other people as evidence, and offering it as proof. On a matter of opinion, it is perfectly valid to say “I’m not the only person that believes this, lots of other people do to”. It is not valis to say “Therefore, it must be true.”
you asked a leading question, you got a straight answer.
here you are talking about facts. facts are not relevant to this subject for quoted facts can not be disputed, no matter who presented those facts.
ignoring any referance to supporters and facts, simply concentrate on the speaker. should it matter if the speaker was hitler, mother theresa or joe smith?
[quote]
On a matter of opinion, it is perfectly valid to say “I’m not the only person that believes this, lots of other people do to”.[/qoute]
no, it should not be a matter of opinion because “lots of other people” in it self is just like when a kid says “just because”, its just a grown up version of just that.
this is something people resort to when they cant argue their case anymore.
the following quote is an example of what you sholdnt do:
like freedom2 said:
pretty much sums it up.
the following quote is an example of what is alright to do:
quoted from the ed zotti:
In fact, I think I have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about.
Ok bjOrn…
This is how I see this thread:
You start out asking if it is OK to start your arguement by dropping names, and yet that is exactly what you do. (first line in fact)
Then you try to make a case that intent doens’t matter, and neither should a writer’s personal history. Only what they actually write should be considered.
Then…
You take this:
And turn it into this:
I took the time to point out your lapse in considering my history and projecting an intent on my words instead of focusing on the actual text I used.
Instead of seeing any contradiction by yourself in this thread, you press on here:
So bjOrn, answer these simple questions please.
How do you draw the conclusion that I think Stoidela does not use good logic based on the comments in this thread unless you are taking intent into consideration?
Here is the standard you proposed for intent:
So, do you need a new standard, or would the average person unfamiliar with the SD be able to draw the same conclusions you did from my post?
no i am not suggesting s/he has any good or bad logic going
and you added:
this is where i draw the conclusion that you dont belive that stoidela uses good logic.
i am not contradicting myself, i started this thread using the word “supporter”.
through the course of this thread the role of supporter has aquired 2 meanings:
the supporter is that “other people” that belive the original speaker
the supporter is the speaker himself because when the speakers name is sufficient enough to support the words he speaks the words true meaning fails.
then there added another factor into this, it was concluded that this did not apply when quoting facts, for example if you were to mention the law of gravity it matters if you apply it to newton or smith.
so in my last post i quoted one statement and one fact. who made the statement does not matter but it matters that it was ed zotti that made the fact, because if i had made that fact it would have no value on the sdmb.
this is something i think people tend to forget when reading books, newspapers or posts on a messageboard. people say: “this is a good book” even though they havent read it because they have read something by that same author before. same goes for movies, as soon as some movie director or actor makes a break it seems to automatically apply to the next movie too.
everybody say for example; “wow, a tom cruise movie”…
so, when theese respected actors, directors or writers make one bad move no one notices…they are generally accepted as success.
albert einstein once did a wrong calculation, people noticed but didnt belive it because einstein did theese calculations, so they started over thinking they had done something wrong…until they finally traced the error to einsteins calculations in a way there was no doubt that they were wrong.
my theory is that if einstein would have anonymously made those wrong calculations people would probably not have questioned their initial error.
