More Ad Hom
- From: Glenn <GlennSheldon@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:16:52 -0800 (PST)
It appear to me that in the recent thread "OT: Public service
announcement- Ad Hominem" that two basic issues concerning ad homs
were not resolved; whether ad homs have to be explicit and whether an
ad hom included in an argument that does address an opponents argument
be considered ad hom. Of course, I was the only one who disagreed on
either and both. So I will provide a subject for the first here, and
look forward to seeing responses.
Under the heading "CA130 Ad Hominem" in "Index to Creationist Claims"
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
is "CA131. Darwin suffered from psychoneurosis."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA131.html
The second response to the "Creationists claim" appears to be reacting
as if the "Claim" is an ad hominem:
"The theory of evolution is based on evidence, not on the authority of
Darwin. Aspects of Darwin's life are of historical interest, but they
have no relevance to science."
The "Claim": "Charles Darwin became chronically ill shortly after
returning from his voyage on the Beagle, making him an invalid for
much of his life. His symptoms -- depression, vomiting, palpitations,
etc. -- match no organic illness and appear to be psychogenic
(originating in his mind). The cause of this illness could be anxiety
that his theory was wrong or guilt from rejecting God."
Is the FAQ author claiming that the alleged claim an ad hom? But
regardless, is the alleged claim ad hom, and did the FAQ author
address the "argument"?
I read through one reference to the "Claim"
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=112
and not the second, for if the first is not ad hom or is not what is
actually addressed by the "Response[s]", would complicate the issues,
to perhaps include the fallacy of guilt by association.
I submit that the "Claim" is an accurate enough representation of the
referenced article. However, neither the "Claim" or the article is ad
hominem. The "Claim" makes no conclusions about theory being wrong or
being "relevant to science". It proposes possible reasons for Darwins
illnesses. In any event, the 2nd "Response" seems to be a red herring
at best, not responding to the actual "Claim", nor any claim made in
the first referenced article. Darwin's illness, whatever it was,
seemed clearly to affect at least some of his "work and conclusions";
whether he was "right" or not in his conclusions concerning some
things.
Response 1 seems to be little more than a war of references to
literature that is described in the Response itself as much
controversy in the past over different proposed diagnoses (and same
references are included in the Creationist article as well), except
that it implies some reason to respond to the *"Claim"* as if some
part of the claim included at least an intimation that Darwin was
"psychotic": "Even if Darwin's illness was an anxiety disorder, such a
disorder has nothing to do with being psychotic." It doesn't, and the
title doesn't.
The referenced article is titled "Was Charles Darwin psychotic? A
study of his mental health",
but the author does not in the article claim that he was psychotic. I
would hope that psychoneurosis is not confused as being the same as
psychotic: "The diagnosis of the cause of his mental and physical
problems includes a variety of debilitating conditions, but
agoraphobia with the addition of psychoneurosis is most probably
correct." Did the FAQ author address the "Claim", or is this another
red herring.
The third "Response" seems off topic completely,"Some people can
achieve great things while suffering seemingly debilitating
conditions", since the "Claim" or article makes no mention or claim
that Darwin didn't achieve "great things". That Darwin is claimed to
have researched and wrote several major books seems to be a "self
directed" red herring, since researching and writing books does not
make them "great things", nor is the fact that he was chronically ill
while he did so in any way, a response to the "Claim" or "supporting"
article.
The FAQ author seems not capable of recognizing an ad hominem,
consistently uses red herrings and faulty reasoning rather than
address the claim. Or he assumes that Creationists use this argument
to conclude that "Darwin was wrong", which of course he did.
Was there an ad hom *anywhere* in this FAQ or the "Claim"?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: More Ad Hom
- From: Robert Carnegie
- Re: More Ad Hom
- From: Mark VandeWettering
- Re: More Ad Hom
- From: Inez
- Re: More Ad Hom
- Prev by Date: Re: increase in information represented by DNA
- Next by Date: Re: Why Pregnant Women Dont Tip Over
- Previous by thread: Hovind shows why people laught at creationists.
- Next by thread: Re: More Ad Hom
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
