I said, "Argument by analogy" which you changed to "argument by
example." I agree with you concerning argument by example. Argument by
analogy is weaker since the proposition is created by the one whose
point of view is being supported by the argument. By analogy, this is
like asking industry to write tax policy.
Concerning syllogism, I think you can take any of those definitions
and try to apply them to your argument by analogy and find the
argument weak. Doesn't mean that your position is wrong, simply that
your supporting argument is weak.
Concerning your education, I am pleased that you have one. Many people
do. Having an education doesn't mean that your argument is logically
constructed. Using argument by analogy: having a hammer and chisel
doesn't mean the owner is Rodin.
I didn't think that I cast aspersions. I praised your style of writing
and I now praise your pugnacity. I simply don't think that your
arguments as put forward in the newspaper piece are of any scientific
merit. Doesn't mean they're wrong. Just means that they are
unsupported opinions that would not be published, as written, in any
scientific journal that I've ever seen.
You asked what I thought. I gave it to you and then you argue. Does
this mean that I don't think what I thought that I thought?
This is hardly worth any discussion at all, Patrick. We are not
arguing the merits of your position, but are wallowing around in
argument concerning my impression of your method of presentation.
---chris
chris_wells@usgs.gov
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Save the Forests,Not Each Tree (http://www.latimes.co
Author: Patrick Moore <pmoore@mail.bc.rogers.wave.ca> at NBS-Internet-Gateway
Date: 3/30/98 4:18 PM
You write:
> For example, your argument by analogy,
>
> "Imagine if the people of the Polynesian Islands decided that all
> the palm trees must be preserved, that none could be cut for
> building houses or canoes. Their culture would be destroyed. It is
> not that Polynesians don't love the trees--they practically worship
> them, since the palms provide so much of what they need for food
> and shelter. But they do have an intuitive understanding that so
> long as the palms are sustainably harvested, there will always be
> trees for future generations."
>
> is undoubtedly a persuasive technique. Dissected as a syllogism it
> becomes preposterous and one from which any scientist would run in
> terror--regardless of his or her position concerning timber
> management.
Which of these meanings of syllogism are you referring to? I don't
understand why arguing about sustainability by example is "preposterous"
syl·lo·gism
Pronunciation: 'si-l&-"ji-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English silogisme, from Middle French, from Latin
syllogismus, from Greek syllogismos, from syllogizesthai to syllogize, from
syn- + logizesthai to calculate, from logos reckoning, word -- more at LEGEND
Date: 14th century
1 : a deductive scheme of a formal argument consisting of a major and a
minor premise and a conclusion (as in "every virtue is laudable; kindness is
a virtue; therefore kindness is laudable")
2 : a subtle, specious, or crafty argument
3 : deductive reasoning
Regarding your aspersions on the scientific merit of my argument I do hold a
BSc in Forest Biology and a PhD in ecology and I do believe my argument is
well grounded in science.
Cheers
Patrick Moore, Greenspirit
http://www.greenspirit.com
May the Forest be With You
Snail Mail:
4068 West 32nd Avenue
Vancouver, B.C. V6S 1Z6
Canada
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Wells <Chris_Wells@usgs.gov>
To: Multiple recipients of list FOREST <FOREST@LISTSERV.FUNET.FI>; Patrick
Moore <pmoore@mail.bc.rogers.wave.ca>
Date: Monday, March 30, 1998 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: Save the Forests,Not Each Tree (http://www.latimes.co
> For your interest, my editorial from the Los Angeles Times this
> morning. It is the fourth largest newspaper in the US. I would be
> interested in any comments.
>
> http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/COMMENT/t000030341.html
>
>
> Patrick
>
> Perhaps the problem some people have when reading your contributions
> is to confuse you and your opinions with a scientist and his or her
> goal of objective investigation. There is absolutely nothing wrong
> with you arguing your position with whatever tools you choose to use.
> This is the nature of public opinion and debate. Many readers on this
> list seem to confuse it with scientific debate.
>
> For example, your argument by analogy,
>
> "Imagine if the people of the Polynesian Islands decided that all
> the palm trees must be preserved, that none could be cut for
> building houses or canoes. Their culture would be destroyed. It is
> not that Polynesians don't love the trees--they practically worship
> them, since the palms provide so much of what they need for food
> and shelter. But they do have an intuitive understanding that so
> long as the palms are sustainably harvested, there will always be
> trees for future generations."
>
> is undoubtedly a persuasive technique. Dissected as a syllogism it
> becomes preposterous and one from which any scientist would run in
> terror--regardless of his or her position concerning timber
> management.
>
> I suppose I do not understand your question.
>
> What do I think of the article? I give you an "A" for style, a "B+"
> for technique, can't grade on grammar because I know that the
> editorial staff had to have been in on that, and find I cannot grade
> it for science because it is obviously in the wrong venue for that
> type of grade.
>
> You'll get the usual flames and kudos from the usual suspects.
>
> ---chris
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0