Talk:Jacques Derrida/Ad hominem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This subpage for the Derrida discussion page has been linked for RfC. 5 July 2005 15:19 (UTC)

Contents 1 Ad hominem attacks? 2 Is Wikipedia just 'truth' by consensus? 3 Responding to Mapro... 4 A request for some focus 5 RfC: comments 6 All Overtaken by Events ? 7 Circularity

[edit] Ad hominem attacks?

An ad hominem attack is when one attacks the (wo)man, not her/his argument. There is a difference between an argumentum ad hominem and an insult. An insult doesn't imply argumentation, and it isn't bound the rules of logic. The following is a passage from this article:

Outside this circle Derrida's work has often been at least as controversial as within; many analytic philosophers and scientists, some going so far as to regard it as pseudophilosophy, even engaging in ad hominem attacks against him, calling him a "charlatan".

This isn't an example of an ad hominem attack, it's an example of an insult. --Maprovonsha172 02:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, calling someone a charlatan is making claims about their person by way of their work. Where one does nothing more than offer this characterisation without justification, that's attacking the person rather than the work. This insults people's intelligence as much as anything else. --Buffyg 10:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First of all, critics of the postmodernists have hardly offered characterizations "without justification." Secondly, insulting a person's intelligence is still just an insult. Ad hominem implies that the only thing his critics could do was to revert to personal attacks. Not all personal attacks are argumentum ad hominems. --Maprovonsha172 12:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look, chap, if you've nothing to offer other than hopelessly broad generalisations like "critics of the postmodernists have hardly offered characterizations 'without justification,'" perhaps you might reconsider whether you are in fact arguing the point at hand or trying to justify such generalisations without considering the evidence at hand. I did not say that calling Derrida a charlatan was insulting Derrida's intelligence — I said that the characterisation as offered is insulting to the intelligence of anyone who is trying to find specific reasons for strong rejection of Derrida's work. Again you miss the point that calling someone a charlatan without elaborating reasons is imputing something to his work by way of his character and to his character by way of his work. Absent reasoned justification, the characterisation is ad hominum by default. --Buffyg 13:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In any case, have you read the Searle-Derrida debate, the letter to the Times opposing his award from Cambridge, the interviews he has given on these, or any other materials referenced in the section? --Buffyg 13:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit. Since you're proposing a change and we have a nascent edit war on our hands, let's both please wait until others have a chance to comment on the matter before engaging in further editing of the article. Feel free to continue making your case here. --Buffyg 13:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The argumentum ad hominem that you're referring to is an example of a logical fallacy. However, like appeals to authority, not all ad hominems are logically fallacious. Likewise, not all personal attacks are ad hominem attacks. An ad hominem is a bad argument against a person, not his or her argument. Of course not all personal attacks are arguments. If I were to say I think marijuana should be legal, and somebody says, "you're just saying that because you like smoking it so much," that, true or not, would be an example of an illegitimate ad hominem. Some ad hominems are legitimate. The following ad hominem is legitimate in that it follows, but one must assume the premises:

Legitimate Ad hominem:

• P1: Jacques Derrida writes about literature and philosophy.

• P2: Jacques Derrida is a charlatan.

• C: We shouldn't listen to anything Jacques Derrida has to say.

However, insults aren't necessarily ad hominems at all. Here's an example:

Insult:

Jacques Derrida is a charlatan.

There isn't a logical fallacy in that argument because it isn't an argument, it's only an insult. --Maprovonsha172 14:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I continue to object as before: the conclusion you've given in your example is implicit once you've asserted the premise that someone is a charlatan; one need not elaborate the full form of argument but rather identify it as an essential element in recurring a pattern of argument. You are fixating on this distinction between insult and argument only because the remark appears isolated when offered as a general observation. In any case, the next sentence about self-reflexive application of forms of argument does already appear to answer your objection. --Buffyg 06:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The conclusion I've given in my example is implicit once I've asserted the premise? Thanks for rewording my caveat. This isn't about whether Derrida is a charlatan, it is whether calling him a charlatan is an ad hominem attack. I see you're reverting to postmodern jargon to cover your tracks (self-reflexive application of forms of argument) but the fact is you stand corrected on the ad hominem issue. As both examples show, calling someone a charlatan cannot be an argumentum ad hominem in either case. --Maprovonsha172 14:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pray tell, how is that remark "postmodern jargon?" It's intended as a polite and non-moralising way of remarking on a particular stripe of hypocrisy. I feel unobliged to dignify you with a response when that's the sort of self-satisfying polemics you carelessly throw around. It is clear to me that your concern is not whether the remark is a reasonable characterisation of a pattern of argument used against Derrida (you've not claimed that you are in any position to assess this) but whether the wording of the article conforms to the distinction you've offered as you've offered it. We've been through this before: you believe that what you're reading is incorrect, so you reword an article to say something that's no longer accurate. It's just plain sloppy. Then you argue and argue and argue about something that's not quite the point because you're sure that the wording is unacceptable, and you continue to push edits that are also incorrect. Please cut it out. To attempt to clarify: when I say that ad hominems are used and qualify this by saying that ad hominems call Derrida a charlatan, is it not reasonable to take the latter qualification as the premise constitutive of ad hominem argument?

You seem in any case to be pushing an edit war, while I've simply asked you to wait to make your change until someone else steps in and comments, since we evidently aren't going to work this out between us. I've reverted the ad hominem statement and obliged you for the sake of both clarity and correctness by calling the remark a premise. Let's not edit further until a few people jump into this discussion and consensus emerges. --Buffyg 23:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since Buffyg has requested other opinions, I'll jump in and say that I think it is completely accurate to call the "charlatan" epithet both an insult and an ad hominem. Maprovonsha172 is using a very narrow syllogistic definition of the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem as though it were the only permissible way to use the phrase, where ordinary language permits a rather broader use. I would also like to encourage Maprovonsha172, as a relatively new Wikipedian, to review Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot and please remember to assume good faith on other editors' part rather than escalating conflicts like this one into edit wars. Having said that, I would much prefer the article to give a specific citation for the "charlatan" remark, and I believe either wording would ultimately work fine in the broader context. --Rbellin|Talk 23:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A very narrow definition? Some things only have narrow definitions. Whether or not 'ordinary language' permits improper usage is another matter. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Ordinary language? Should we allow slang as well?

The fact of the matter is a logical fallacy is claimed where none appear.

And if we can't use proper philosophical definitions we shouldn't use philosophical terminology. It is notable that postmodernists have been noted for using terminology improperly in the past (see Sokal and Bricmont's Fashionable Nonsense) but as an encyclopedia, we should require more "clarity and rigor"! --Maprovonsha172 01:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now you're throwing around abuse sloppily. Whilst speaking of misusing terminology, please justify your repeated insistence on labeling those who don't agree with you "postmodernists." And might we note that we may preserve a narrow definition without accepting the usage you seem intent on mandating? You've not acknowledged my previous remark about the logic of the remark. Could we please leave the article reverted until we can have a reasonable discussion on this? I haven't the sense that we've had any discussion on the matter when you've not so much as acknowledged my request to set aside editing until we have some degree of consensus or spoken to the furthe change I've made to accomodate your objection without creating what I take to be an incorrect assessment ("a logical fallacy is assumed where none appear:" exactly what materials have you reviewed to justify this assertion?). --Buffyg 10:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please justify your use of 'repeated'. To my count I've said 'postmodernists' once, and I think it's rather justified when looking at your record. Usually, it would be a circumstantial genetic fallacy to go into this, but since you asked, you've edited or plan to edit Deconstruction, Lyotard, Lacoue-Labarthe, de Man, and of course Derrida (even your blog goes on and on defending Derrida). That's a solid record of postmodernists. Perhaps it's all that postmodern sophistry that makes you think that when I'm trying to tell you the truth I'm really trying to "mandate the truth." There is but one truth, and there is but one narrow definition of the logical fallacy, argumentum ad hominem.

Not all ad hominems are logical fallacies. It follows that since Jennifer is an infanticidal psychopath I shouldn't let her baby-sit the kids, but it wouldn't follow if I said she is an infanticidal psychopath, ergo, I shouldn't let her sing the national anthem. Likewise, it follows that if someone is a charlatan, I should take what they say at a grain of salt. "Jacques Derrida is a charlatan; I should take what he says at a grain of salt." That follows perfectly. Say what you want about it, whether it's right or wrong it isn't fallacious. There are legitimate and illegitimate ad hominems, but only the illegitimate ones are the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. Since it follows that IF, "Jacques Derrida is a charlatan, I should take what he says at a grain of salt," you can't call it a logical fallacy. The logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem is an informal red herring fallacy of irrelevancy involving the origins or history of an idea, which is to say that it is a genetic fallacy. However, this is not the case here. It would be an abusive ad hominem fallacy if someone were to say, "Jacques Derrida is an asshole, I should take what he says at a grain of salt," which doesn't follow but it does follow to say that, "Jacques Derrida is a charlatan, I should take what he says at a grain of salt." To make it fallacious, you would have to argue that Derrida was not in fact a charlatan, but an encyclopedia article is hardly the place to attack or defend someone's character.

As for what materials have I reviewed to justify my assertions, well, it's common knowledge among philosophers. But to be sure, I posed this question on a philosophy forum I frequent, and everyone agreed that right or wrong, what we are discussing isn't a logical fallacy. If you would want to see for yourself I would direct you to the third page of the thread, and my last post at the bottom of the page: Ephilospher link.

Also, here are some books you could check out to increase your knowledge of formal reasoning:

Attacking Faulty Reasoning, by T. Edward Damer

Historians' Fallacies, by David H. Fischer

With Good Reason, by Morris S. Engel

How We Know What Isn't So, by Thomas Gilovich

Nonsense, by Robert J. Gula

If you insist on labeling the "charlatan" remark an "ad hominem," we can have it your way but I'm going to change it to "legitimate ad hominem." I'll be quite frank as to my reason why. This is an encyclopedia; we have to call it like it is. This isn't your blog; stop trying to defend Derrida here. It serves to defend Derrida by saying his critics carelessly commit logical fallacies, but in reality the analytic philosophers that criticize Derrida have a much greater reputation for logical soundness that he or any of his ilk does.

Now I agree that we shouldn't get into personal attacks here, and it would be a better project if we could retain civility but oftentimes I've encountered patent falsity and there is more at stake for the integrity of the encyclopedia is than there is for our squabbling. I don't mean to be rude or talk down to you in any way but I ask that you extend the same civility that were I in your position and in you in mine I would gladly extend to you. As Jonathan Swift said, "a man should never be ashamed to own that he has been in the wrong, which is but saying that he is wiser today than yesterday." I only say that in regards to the ad hominem question at hand, not postmodernism. I don't mean to get into any bigger dispute already. But there is another passage from Swift which assures me that I shouldn't, which I think is a wonderful albeit inadvertent condemnation of Continental Philosophy, "It is useless to try to reason of man out of thinking he was never reasoned into." --Maprovonsha172 15:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've indicated elsewhere that I don't believe Derrida or Lacoue-Labarthe are properly reckoned as postmodernists and do not count themselves as such and that there is no presumptive reason to take deconstruction for a presumptive phenomenon. For that matter, I don't really understand why my contributions to articles by people who are considered postmodernists or, in the case of Lyotard, more or less identify themselves as such make me a postmodernist of any stripe, yet you seem more than happy to apply the label to me as though it could stick that easily. When I say there is a pattern in your use of the term, I'm referring to your comments on the deconstruction page about "the postmodern phenomenon" and "postmodern sophistry," your broad remark about the validity of criticism of postmodernism, your reference to my "postmodern jargon." and your attempt to attach your remarks to the polemics of Sokal and Bricmont (the last of which you seem not to have noticed are caveated in their application to Derrida). Every time you use the term, I read its deployment as exceeding reasonable characterisation and lacking any support by rigorous definition. (I've also noted that you have made remarks about this — "He has since written about postmodernists/postmodernism as well, calling information in articles such as Deconstruction and Jacques Derrida into question on their respective talk pages" — on your user page, which references this open discussion to make what could reasonably be taken as self-aggrandising claims — given that acceptance of your edits remains open to question, that you haven't written much more than polemics, that your edit to the deconstruction page has nothing to do with deconstruction and a lot to do with memetics, and that your edits have virtually nothing to do with information —, and in any case this makes it more difficult to assume your good faith.) I'm not really sure why I should take you as seriously as you have elsewhere demanded when, for example, you take for granted "the reputation for logical soundness" of "analytic philosophers that criticize Derrida" (which is, I should note, an absurb claim as stated) over Derrida or "any of his ilk," which I take to be an ill-informed repetition of unjustifiable prejudice (which is to say: an implicit endorsement of that prejudice). There is in any case clearly contradictory evidence available for weighing the claim as stated: Derrida's reputation was sufficiently strong that, for example, the recommendations of a well-reputed analytically inclined Cambrdige Philosophy Faculty were by majority vote set aside by their colleagues in weighing objections to Derrida's honorary degree on such terms. In any case, I've objected to this argument about reputations before, and you've previously conceded only to fall back into redeploying it. If we're going to argue about causes for objection, this is at the top of my list.

I find just as much cause for pause in your remarks about my blog posts addressing what I take to be plainly uninformed criticism of Derrida, as you entirely set aside any evaluation of the validity of my remarks (which I take to result in part from your previous plain confession that you don't know much about Derrida or deconstruction) and in so doing characterise me as prejudiced because of these objections. (You're not going to find me arguing that you lack credibility in this argument because you have declared Betrand Russell your favourite philosopher.) All in all, I would hope that you could appreciate that this gives me the sense that you've read a lot of what people have said about Derrida and virtually nothing of what he has said in reply, which makes me wonder what exactly it is that you're trying to get at, as you seem to argue against your own qualifications to be taken seriously in terms of specific claims about subject matter, but then you run out and make bold claims about "condemning" "continental philosophy," which seems to undercut your crediblity severely. Thus far, I've tried to assume that you are raising an issue in good faith and that I should try to accomodate you where it benefits the clarity and correctness of the article, but these polemics seem to me entirely self-indulgent (which is also to say extremely counterproductive) and indulge guilt by association, where the guilt of the associated is itself questionable at best and certainly unjustifiable given that you've generally declared yourself to be in no position to make such judgments. I've tried not to put too fine a point on it up to now, but I reckon you ought to understand that I continue to have reasons to take you with a grain of salt even as I try to continue in good faith.

Immediately at issue, however, is that you continue to insist that ad hominem fallacies can only be found where personal remarks are a premise. I've continued to argue that this designation ought to be understood to as a premise constitutive of an ad hominem attack under the definition you've offered, which seems to leave little room for arguing the issue seemingly at hand. You haven't particularly acknowledged this. I've tried to edit this for clarity, as I reckon that this is not as clear as it could or ought be. Adhering to a higher standard of clarity is not nearly the same thing as conceding this point.

Returning to another objection that I think is consistent with our other exchange and relevant in this case, you can argue all you want about the validity of the way that a point is made (which remains important), but it's something else entirely when your concern with the expression leads you to provide a change that is invalid in a different sense. When I ask you what materials you've evaluated to determine whether the remarks is made as an insult or ad hominem, I'm not asking where you got your definition of an ad hominem, I'm asking what materials are you referencing to argue that the characterisation as insult is justifiable in the place of the generalised characterisation as ad hominem, as this becomes a question of whether the article does not adequately argue for ad hominem status or whether the article mischaracterises others' claims about Derrida. It seems to me that you may be arguing the toss without any regard for this resultant distinction (hence my objection to "hopelessly broad generalisations like "critics of the postmodernists have hardly offered characterizations 'without justification,'"" and questioning your assertion that "a logical fallacy is assumed where none appear," as this would also claim to evaluate such potential fallacies, which is precisely what you claim not to have done). This is why I object to your proposed edits. I don't see this as a matter of defending Derrida so much as preserving a defensible statement that may be ill-formed into an indefensible statement based on your criteria for a well-formed statement, to which I think are overstated as to their absolute logical value but retain a measure of validity when it comes to providing clearer presentation. --Buffyg 00:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm stretched to the limit of my good faith assumption with your revision to declare ad hominems "legitimate", which you comment as "correcting POV implications". I had thought that we had agreed that we needed consensus to make further edits, yet we have yet another edit following on a talk page contribution and absent any indication of consensus or, for that matter, reply. Matt, this is the last incident of this I can tolerate without involving an administrator. I am spending an inordinate amount of time reverting edits made before any feedback is offered on the proposed change. When you say that an ad hominem is "legitimate," you seem either to be oblivious to or to be unconcerned about the distinction between logical and factual validity, which I have previously characterised in the talk page as defensible statements that may be ill-formed and well-formed statements that are nonetheless indefensible. When you say "legitimate," it is not clear whether you are evaluating the basic logical form of the proposition or the factual validity of that proposition. This ambiguity is clearly objectionable. I see the following statement uncontested where you have asked elsewhere for agreement to what you have laid out above: "Well, if premise 2 of your argument is true then the conclusion would follow. That would be a legitimate use of the ad hominem because the truth of P2 does have a bearing on the truth of the conclusion." I do not therefore see how you can remark on legitimacy without claiming to have evaluated the proposition that Derrida is a charlatan. I would claim that there must be at least uncontradicted prima facae evidence to the claim to report it as though it may be true; I see no such evidence stand uncontradicted, so I maintain that it is reasonable to report use of any claim of charlatanism as an ad hominem, even in the context of an encyclopedia. On the other hand, your overlooking feedback received elsewhere gives me further reason to suspect that you are aware of the ambiguity of the edit and are unconcerned about discussing clear POV implications.

I find further cause for your concern in your declaring this a "personal dispute" in seeking outside review for your previous reply. I don't myself take it as such, but I am getting tired of having to check in on the article just to catch edits made before any response is offered, let alone consensus apparent. Reverting and replying becomes an unreasonable drain on my time, which I would prefer to devote to reading and research for other articles. I would generally be willing to continue discussion, but preemptive editing tries good faith. In terms of the value of continued discussion, I have already indicated previously why I view your comments with immense circumspection, particularly where you are waxing polemical and using this to argue for your credibility elsewhere on wikipedia. I am on the cusp of declaring that you are more or less consciously provoking an argument here by engaging in an edit war and doing so for purposes that have little to do with improvements to the article or accepted wiki policies. My good faith is practically exhausted, and I will take this up with an admin if I find further cause for concern. 23:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have been silently watching this discussion and since you are soliciting outside views I will jump in. First of all let me state that I have taught courses in argumentation and have used both Damer and Derrida before as textbooks; I am not claiming to be a leading authority on the matter; I just want to point out by way of background that I am familiar with the material being discussed here.

First of all, I think Maprovansha's distinction between legitimate and illegitimate forms of ad hominems is specious in this discussion. He's right that it could follow that "if JD is a charlatan (therefore) I must take what he says with a grain of salt" except that this is circular -- that is basically the definition of a "charlatan" - someone whose words should be taken with a grain of salt. So it's completely beside the point that such a statement would be valid; your comparison to "JD is an asshole therefore I must take what he says iwth a grain of salt" functions as a red herring here. A more analogous comparison would be to say "JD is an asshole, therefore, he is a jerk" for example. Or we can look at this the other way around and point out that an "asshole" is "full of shit," and one who is "full of shit" should have their words taken with a grain of salt. Hmmm? either way, my point is that the distinction between a "legitimate" and "illegitimate" ad hominem here does not address the comment "charlatan" in context -- in context, the comment is used in place of evidence; it is literally an ad hominem.

The other thing I am confused by here is both Mapro. and Buffy seem to be arguing from the premise that if one says "insult" one is "anti-"Derrida whereas if one says "ad hominem" they are "pro-" Derrida. I am not sure I understand any POV issues at stake here. I think either term would be accurate, though "ad hominem" is more precise as it addresses the function of the insult in the context of a deployment of argumentation. But in either case I am surprised by the intensity of the controversy over this term and curious what is at stake for the participants. --csloat 00:45, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply on the ad hominem issue, Sloat.

As to the POV issue you've rightly raised: perhaps POV isn't the best way to say it and tends to obscure the specificity of the problem. What I've called POV here is effectively reclassifying remarks based on possibly reasonable objections to the logical form in which they are rephrased, such that the revised summaries no longer resemble what they are meant to summarise. As I continue to observe that there is no evidence that the editor has reviewed the summarised remarks rather than summaries alone, my sense is that the revisions reflect views to which the editor is predisposed in uncritical reception of reputations and overextended generalities with virtually no effort expended to challenge these predispositions with source materials (i.e. "It serves to defend Derrida by saying his critics carelessly commit logical fallacies, but in reality the analytic philosophers that criticize Derrida have a much greater reputation for logical soundness that he or any of his ilk does."). I consider the essence of the NPOV policy the presentation opinions while pointing out contradictions and other limits to their explanatory power. I see the effect of these edits contradicting this, but the problem does seem more fundamental. Although I have asked Matthew to justify statements like the example given or pointed out to him in a few cases contradictory evidence, my hypothesis absent some answer from him is that he's pushing what he believes to be the case without the research to back it up, largely relying on hearsay sources. Most of what I've heard is a stream of generalisations about "postmodernism" and "continental philosophy", the application of which has not been justified in the face of objections and which have in any case at times been used to launch ad hominem arguments against several targets, including me.

This, combined with his tendency to make edits without consensus or even reply, stretches the limits of good faith. I am happy that I was able to wait a couple of days and relax a bit before coming back to this page. You're more likely to suffer wikistress when you're editing the same page back and forth several times a day and feeling obliged to make further remarks on the talk page to indicate that you do want to work matters out. --Buffyg 29 June 2005 11:43 (UTC)

I forgot about this page for a while. I come back and there are 'pages' more written. Wow. Well, the legitamate ad hominem problem stands. And no, it isn't circular. If Derrida is a charlatan, I should take him at a grain of salt. The definition of a charlatan is not that he ought to be taken at a grain of salt, it is a person that puts on showy pretenses. A conclusion that can be drawn is that if someone puts on showy pretenses, you should take that someone at a grain of salt. That's a legitamate ad hominem. It legitamately goes against the person. A LEGITAMATE AD HOMINEM IS NOT A LOGICAL FALLACY! But saying something is an ad hominem, without clarifying the fact that it is a legitamate ad hominem, implies that it is fallacious when it isn't. That's why from the begining I wanted to call it an insult so it is both accurate and POV-neutral. I'll grant that "legitamate ad hominem" implies that it is true, whether it is or not (because just becuase something is fallacious doesn't mean it isn't true and, in this case, vice versa). But you must admit that calling it an ad hominem implies that is a logically fallacious ad hominem though it isn't. So why don't we comprimise on "insult"? --Maprovonsha172 29 June 2005 22:56 (UTC)

The problem doesn't exactly stand, but you seem intent on propping it up. I doubt you can support it at this rate: "But saying something is an ad hominem, without clarifying the fact that it is a legitamate ad hominem, implies that it is fallacious when it isn't. That's why from the begining I wanted to call it an insult so it is both accurate and POV-neutral." This gets us right to the heart of the matter. So far you've provided plenty of hypothetical examples, but your claim is no longer simply a matter of argumentative logical formalisms; it is a matter of actually citing a source and arguing its admissability as a reasoned POV and therefore "legitimate". You would readily concede that no one is reasonably entitled to assume that someone else is a charlatan; someone has to carry the burden of defending that assertion. Absent that, your reasoning becomes circular. As you've continued to sidestep this, I don't expect that there is any available reason either to admit what you ask or to accept a compromise with your position. --Buffyg 30 June 2005 00:56 (UTC)

"it is a matter of actually citing a source and arguing its admissability as a reasoned POV and therefore 'legitimate'." You want me to find someone that said Derrida is a charlatan? The article said someone said Derrida is a charlatan before I ever touched it.

"someone has to carry the burden of defending that assertion." Yes, but certainly not me. The charlatan line was there before I edited Derrida, and I wouldn't be surprised if you wrote it yourself.

"Absent that, your reasoning becomes circular." My reasoning is no way circular and you haven't argued that it is. You make these grand declarations and you think you've proven something. You've proven nothing except for the fact that you're in Derrida's corner and you need to brush up on formal logic (at the risk of falsely assuming you were ever trained in it).

Let me tell you what are objective facts indisputable:

The following is a legitamate ad hominem as suggested by the article:

P1: Jacques Derrida wrote about literature and philosophy.

P2:Jacques Derrida is a charlatan.

C: We should take what Derrida has to say for a grain of salt.

That logically follows and it isn't circular. See the link I posted above (which you ignored), no philosopher said this was circular reasoning.

To say it is an "ad hominem" implies that it is a logical fallacy, when only "illegitamate ad hominems" are logically fallacious. Therefore, it could be put in a NPOV way either "legitamate ad hominem" or "insult", but not "illegitamate ad hominem" which it is not or simply "ad hominem" which implies that it is illegitamate. --Maprovonsha172 30 June 2005 01:36 (UTC)

I gather you've not been reading my responses, including the remark: "I see the following statement uncontested where you have asked elsewhere for agreement to what you have laid out above: 'Well, if premise 2 of your argument is true then the conclusion would follow. That would be a legitimate use of the ad hominem because the truth of P2 does have a bearing on the truth of the conclusion.'" I could have just as easily cited the following remark at the end of the thread: "Now you just have to prove the premises." The distinction is not simply about logical validity, so you have to demonstrate more than that: you have to show that there is reason to accept the premise for conclusions drawn from it not to be fallacious. --Buffyg 30 June 2005 08:03 (UTC)

Buffy I see what you mean about Mapro testing the limits of good faith assumption. Let me add that his use of the charlatan thing is just circular. A "charlatan" is not "a person that puts on showy pretenses" but rather literally a con-man; someone who by definition cannot be trusted (i.e. whose words must be taken with a grain of salt). Really -- click it and see. You're (mapro) just muddying the issue by breaking that down into two claims. It is a circular argument. By the way what the heck does P1 have to do with your point anyway? There is no need for P1 in the argument you outline there, and P2 and C are basically the same claim. Also I find it odd that you want to on the one hand insist on a distinction between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" ad hominems and then claim that "ad hominem" implies illegitimacy. --csloat 30 June 2005 08:35 (UTC)

Buffy, it is not my charge to prove that Derrida is a charlatan. In common with the most often used logical fallacies it is a matter of irrelevance. You're right to say that if one of the premises isn't true, the argument falls apart as regards logical validity. But then that is a different fallacy. It still would be a legitimate ad hominem, but it would be an example of the logical fallacy of the false premise. Which is to say that what is disputed is not whether we can trust a charlatan, but whether the person is a charlatan. But as I said, just saying "ad hominem" implies that it is an illegitimate ad hominem, precisely because (as you two show) most people have misconceptions about formal reasoning, if they know anything about it at all, even educated people of above-average intelligence such as yourselves.

Saying he is a charlatan may be true or false, but it is not the logical fallacy of the ad hominem in this case. It may be the logical fallacy of the false premise but why should we go to all this trouble of arguing semantics if it can be resolved so simply as to refer to the attacks in question as insults? The word "insult" doesn't imply anything one way or the other as both "ad hominem" and "legitimate ad hominem" do. "Ad hominem" implies an error in logic whether one has occurred or not, and "legitimate ad hominem" implies truthfulness, whether the premises are true or not. When I say "imply," I mean what it implies to the layperson's ear, as we are writing an encyclopedia and should write as clear and simply as we possibly can so that people of all walks of life can come hear and gain at least a rudimentary understanding of whatever the article concerns. I think my explanation of what I mean by "imply" serves to answer Sloat's question about what he "finds odd." Also, Sloat, "one that puts on showy pretenses" is the definition of charlatan, (see links below) and thus it isn't circular, it is a logical conclusion. Just because something very directly follows doesn't mean it is circular, consider the following argument (which also isn't circular):

P1:Jennifer wants to baby-sit my kids.

P2:Jennifer is an infanticidal psychopath.

C: I shouldn't let Jennifer baby-sit the kids.

Of course, an infanticidal psychopath is exactly who you wouldn't want to baby-sit, but it isn't circular, it just follows. I hope we can agree to just call the charlatan remark an insult, which, in contrast to all alternatives yet proposed, is neither pretentious nor misleading. I also hope that Buffy isn't just defending Derrida to the teeth because he wants him to sound good. Of course to accuse Derrida's detractors of logical fallacies serves to discredit them and thus defend him. It seems to be a nearly-childish insistence that won't allow the remark to be called an insult, which it unquestionably is, instead of a misleading technical philosophical term, which is very disputed here. This is a user-created encyclopedia, it isn't truth by consensus, or at least it shouldn't be.

Charlatan:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=charlatan+&x=2&y=22

one making usually showy pretenses to knowledge or ability

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/c/c0250600.html

A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge. --Maprovonsha172 30 June 2005 19:31 (UTC)

"A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge" is someone who, by definition, cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Your cherry picking definitions; as you well know, the word means someone who practices trickery, who makes shit up. So the "argument" is circular at best. But it really doesn't matter; you are nitpicking. Calling Derrida a charlatan is an ad hominem because it doesn't respond to his arguments; it just calls him names; in your words, it insults him. In the context of an attempt to dispute his point, such an insult is properly called an ad hominem. Nothing misleading at all about calling it that. But I still don't see what the stakes are here -- you seem to agree that "charlatan" is an inappropriate thing to call him, and you don't seem to defending the claim that he is a charlatan, so what really is your point? --csloat 30 June 2005 20:26 (UTC)

My $.02: It seems to me that P1 is irrelevant in both examples. You shouldn't let a psychopath babysit. You should take anything a charlatan does with a grain of salt. As for the disputed expression, it appears to me that saying that the critics resorted to insults makes them actually look worse (I'm inclined to understand insults as a particularly miserable variety of ad hominem). --Conf 1 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)

[edit] Is Wikipedia just 'truth' by consensus?

I've tried to be as nice and as patient as I can be but you all argue about things you don't know much about. I'm reminded of Alan Sokal's book Fashionable Nonsense in which he showed the postmodernists use scientific terms of which they don't know their meanings (and yes, Buffy, I know Derrida wasn‘t a target of the book‘s criticism but just because he didn‘t use or misuse scientific terms doesn‘t mean he wasn‘t a charlatan).

"Your cherry picking definitions; as you well know, the word means someone who practices trickery, who makes shit up." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant "You're", even then, it isn't much of an accusation. "As I well know"? I looked it up and that's what came up.

"So the "argument" is circular at best." You continue to defend Derrida despite the facts. Do you even know what "circular" means? Are you a philosopher/philosophy student? Well I am a philosophy student. I know what I am talking about. A circular argument is set up like the following:

(A-->B) (B-->C) (C-->A)

You cannot call the following circular because it (obvious to anyone who knows what they are talking about) plainly isn't:

P1:Jacques Derrida wrote about literature and philosophy.

P2:Jacques Derrida is a charlatan.

C:I should take what he wrote about literature and philosophy at a grain of salt.

That's not a circular argument, that's just using logic. Anyone who knows what they are talking about would know that. It isn't circular because even if "I should take him/her at a grain of salt" were the exact definition of a charlatan (which it hardly is), a charlatan isn't the only type of person you should take at a grain of salt. A rage-aholic or a bitter enemy or a sociopath could be other possibilities, so it is all not perfectly symmetrical, and therefore not circular overall. A charlatan has specific modes and motivations; it is not the only path to lying. Moreover, lying is not the only path to misdirection , and only the milder charge of misdirection is needed to raise the cautionary grain-of-salt flag. Even if it were tautological (which it isn't), it wouldn't necessarily be circular. Here is an example of a non-circular tautology:

A=B, so B=A.

I quite honestly don't mean to sound malicious, but if you guys knew what you were talking about, we never would have had this discussion. In philosophy, we deductively infer truths from premises. The above argument concluding that we should take Derrida at a grain of salt is logically valid, if (if you dispute the premises) unsound. It is neither an example of the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem nor the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. There is no disputing that. To say, "Nothing misleading at all about calling it that," regarding calling something an "ad hominem" when it isn't an illegitimate ad hominem is almost certainly purposefully misleading spoken by anyone at all knowledgeable about formal reasoning. Obviously, there are widespread and deeply-held misconceptions about formal reasoning, and if it is so difficult to explain to other wikipedians imagine how hard it would be for the student looking up information on Wikipedia. I'm beginning to wonder if he should trust us enough to do so. Wikipedia runs the risk of misinforming thousands of people when they refuse to put what is actually correct in their articles. This isn't truth by consensus, or it least it shouldn't be.

I'm reminded of Harry Frankfurt's essay On Bullshit, in which he lamented the fact that in a democracy, everyone feels as though they should have an opinion on EVERYTHING, even things they aren't qualified to have an opinion on. The result is the mass-acceptance of bullshit, and the great success of Bullshitters. I fear this may be happening to Wikipedia. This is democratizing academia, and bullshit-promotion has ensued. To say that calling Derrida a charlatan an “ad hominem” implies (to laypeople) that it is logically fallacious; I have shown that it is neither an example of circular reasoning nor the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem. “Insult” is a better word; it is accurate, unpretentious, and carries a lighter (and more appropriate) connotation than the (in this case) misleading technical philosophical term, "ad hominem." So I am going to change it back to "insult," and since I have shown that (to anyone that knows what we are talking about) "ad hominem" isn't suitable here because it is misleading, and "insult" would be just as accurate but even more so as it is not misleading, anyone changing it back is only doing so to attack Derrida's detractors. It sounds bad (for Derrida's critics) if under the heading "Derrida and his critics" we begin by accusing them of logical fallacies. I'm not saying all ad hominems are logically fallacious (a point I hope everyone here understands) but we can’t expect the average layperson to know that. And isn't that who we are trying to inform? As it stands, this article serves to misinform. Like Frankfurt's criticism of the democratic attitude to have an opinion about everything, damn the experts; Wikipedia is a democratization of information and the consequences have led to the same attitude - damn the experts. Maybe it would be better if we only write about what we know, instead of trying to get in on everything, or at least, what we don't know. I don't try to write about anything I'm not knowledgeable, and it seems commonsense to me for everyone to do the same. I'm not going to argue about calculus or German poetry, if you don't know about philosophy don't argue about philosophy. So, as I said, I'm going to change it back, and if you want to (as you threatened) Buffy, go ahead and involve an administrator. I happen to be right in this discussion and I’m concerned this all only serves to make Wikipedia look bad, putting patent bullshit up on our articles (and this isn't the only article). I've heard people say that they wouldn't trust Wikipedia as a source, and I tried to tell them that we change things when they aren't right (which still of course wouldn't help the person getting bad information from an article before it's corrected), but now I'm beginning to agree with them. Maprovonsha172 1 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)

Again, an edit without waiting for reply. You can rail all you want and make shrill claims like, "if you guys knew what you were talking about, we never would have had this discussion". You start by invoking Sokal and postmodernism; not only have you failed to substantiate that tenuous connection, you fail to note that where Sokal tried to attach his arguments to Derrida, he was wrong. This is an indication of the sort of careless tarring that we get from someone who is happy to drag in issues of tenuous relevance to aggrandise the importance of his argument.

You are, however, cherry-picking your arguments; you were satisfied to call the remark "a legitimate ad hominem" despite this having implications to the average layman of the sort that you are now utterly insistent on rendering inacessible where they are inconsistent with your claims about reputation. Your adherence to the rigours of formal reasoning has therefore been selective, and your edit is consistent with this. You've made a series of arguments about the superior reputation for "logical consistency" of analytic philosophers, yet, where there is a reasonably available contradictory implication (not of logical necessity but a matter of a possible false premise) that should be made available to the reader to evaluate, you insist on obscuring that implication by saying that the use of an insult in an argument should not be called an ad hominem (although, you have readily conceded that it rightly called so) because that would imply that it is only a matter of bad manners, thus suppressing any possibility of fallacy, which we now recognise can happen at two levels: the use of the ad hominem can be logically unjustiable, or the premise itself can be faulty. What thus is not said is that the insult is part of an argument, which makes it an ad hominem. You've tried to argue that wikipedia is not the place to argue for or against someone's reputation (incidentally, I don't agree with this statement as you've given it — where someone's reputation is in question, one should present specific claims and what supports and contradicts those claims), but this is what you are subtly trying to do in avoiding the possible negative implication of ad hominem argument (where there are matters of definite fallacy, one ought say as much; where this is a matter of possible fallacy, one ought present it as such).

What you're doing in the name of neutrality is to set aside these implications because you think people might accept them according to criteria to which you would not agree. If you really want to speak to the distinction between an instult, an ad hominem argument, an ad hominem fallacy, and an incorrectly premised ad hominem rather than bury it, make it on the ad hominem page, not here. You can claim "You continue to defend Derrida despite the facts", but you have yet to argue on the basis of any facts (which you readily claim not to possess); your only arguments have been on a selective application of formal logic. If you want to go off and read some of the materials cited and offer correctives based on those readings, your feedback would be recognised as constructive and in good faith. Buffyg 4 July 2005 13:13 (UTC)

Let's take a step back and note the official policies at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution, as we are clearly in a dispute. Much of the argument here has been between User:Maprovonsha172 and me. I have tried to argue my position, and I reckon I've done that to death by now. I see that other users, whether they fully agree with me or not, have not accepted Maprovonsha172's edit. Where I have had reason to doubt Maprovonsha172's good faith (particularly his tarring technique in debates here and elsewhere), I have said as much. What I see in Maprovonsha172's last contribution to this page is a fundamental rejection of official policy: "Wikipedia is a community, which means that we have to work together in writing the encyclopedia. Articles often have more than one user working on them, and sometimes users will disagree about how the article should be written. If you have a disagreement over an article, try to reach a truce and stop editing until you can resolve the issue. Please do not engage in edit wars with other users; this is not a helpful way of resolving disputes and does nothing to improve Wikipedia." In keeping with this policy, I believe that we need to resort to our options for dispute resolution to move this forward. As previously requested, let's stick to a truce here and not engage (or further engage) in an edit war by continuing to make changes to the article without waiting for replies from others who have tried to stay engaged in discussion. Buffyg 4 July 2005 14:37 (UTC)

How about instead of saying "tarring," you point out one false accusation. I think I've presented a pretty good case: you don't know what the hell you're talking about and yet you persist, for the only apparent reason that you wish to discredit Derrida's detractors in his article.

Well, let's start with the remark you've just made: "you don't know what the hell you're talking about." I observed previously that you continue to make remarks associating the matter apparently at hand with postmodernism, yet you are unable to substantiate that claim. You can make it analogically, or you can try, as you have, to make the association more intimate. You objected previously that there was no pattern to this where you have now used this approach more than half a dozen times. I have pointed out that the relationship between deconstruction and postmodernism does not appear to authorise this level of association, and you've ignored the argument completely. It isn't that observing that I've made contributions to some of pages would "usually" be a circumstantial genetic fallacy: it is a circumstantial genetic fallacy when you make no further claims about the nature of those contributions, which you are using as an ad hominem. You continue to insist that my interest is in discrediting Derrida's detractors in this article, yet you insist on writing out anything that might qualify the validity of their arguments by way of internal consistency or substantiation of major claims. That looks suspiciously like bias on your part when you are arguing about the purposes served by a given characterisation, which looks like a suspiciously insufficient criteria to resolve matters (hence the section on the NPOV page "The vital component: good research"). If there's an argument here, the crux comes down to how to present this problem neutrally and on the basis of textual evidence.

The continued weakness of your argument is your claim that, because the implications are consistent with positions you impute to me but cannot substantiate in terms of wikipedia contributions, I am not trustworthy. I've emphasised that the implications should be taken as possible rather than necessary, but that is up to the reader rather than you to decide. I do not accuse Derrida's detractors of ad hominem fallacy; I say that they sometimes employ ad hominem argument and indicate what I hold to be a recurring premise of such ad hominem argument. I further provide a number of cases in which the evidence cited in support of such ad hominem arguments does not support the premise. The best you've done to refute this is assertions like "critics of the postmodernists have hardly offered characterizations 'without justification'" and had a go at me by way of fallacious implication (which is also insulting, but that hardly specifies the argument). Again I repeat: if your concern was nothing more than fighting for valid logical formalisms that are available to a layman, you would never have offered characterisation as a legitimate ad hominem as a reasonable characterisation. (I'll set aside all the shrill tripe insisting that those that disagree with you are not philosophers; I rate it as having the same argumentative strength as your previous repeated attempts to argue about postmodernist commitments and drag in a series of polemics about that subject matter.) The same argument you've tried to apply to me could be applied to you, working from some of your arguments about reputation (which don't look like at all like the mastery of formal logic you claim sharply distinguishes us), with the further caveat that your only claims are about logical formalism without any attempt at researching who said what about whom and how it was said, which might best be described as "unapplied formal reasoning". You can argue all you like about implications, but if you don't care to read any of the subject matter that is to be characterised here, how exactly do you propose to distinguish arguments whose implications offend your plainly biased and logically indefensible preconceptions and arguments that are unreasonable representations of what you haven't read? You can continue to remark that my positions are "despite the facts," but you have yet to indicate that you have these in your possession.

I would hope that we could advance to the point that what we're arguing is how to make available to the reader possible implications that are not logically necessary and a summary of supporting evidence available without favouring either side; I continue to maintain that trying to suppress these possibilities is another way of promoting bias, which you have plainly expressed. I have stated why I believe you haven't proposed criteria that would lead us to a solution, yet your response is mostly invective about "bullshit" that has little to do with substantive discussion of the matter seemingly at hand. If you're going to argue that you are a philosophy and therefore qualified to contribute, perhaps you might demonstrate this by doing so rather than editorialising off topic and ad hominem. Buffyg 4 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)

"Again, an edit without waiting for reply." Yeah, well, the article ought to be as truthful as it can be, and if that means changing your edit that's just what it means.

And what do you mean by "invoking Sokal and postmodernism"? Invoking? Did you even read what I said? Here's exactly what I said in case you didn't read it the first time:

I've tried to be as nice and as patient as I can be but you all argue about things you don't know much about. I'm reminded of Alan Sokal's book Fashionable Nonsense in which he showed the postmodernists use scientific terms of which they don't know their meanings (and yes, Buffy, I know Derrida wasn‘t a target of the book‘s criticism but just because he didn‘t use or misuse scientific terms doesn‘t mean he wasn‘t a charlatan).

You see, I said "I'm reminded" of Sokal's book because your arguments invite comparison with those postmodernist writings he tore apart in his book. It invites comparison because the postmodernists used technical scientific terminology they apparently didn't understand, you're using technical philosophical terminology you apparently don't understand.

My point is that everyone knows what insult means, and as Conf said, insult carries a very negative connotation, so why not call it an insult? It is an insult. It is also a legitimate ad hominem, but to laypeople a legitimate ad hominem implies truthfulness and "ad hominem" implies falsity. Wikipedia is not written for technical people, it is written for everyone. As I said about Frankfurt's essay, On Bullshit, it is this democratization of information that has led to the low quality of many of wikipedia's articles. Wikipedia lets anyone write anything, sometimes patent nonsense is removes, othertimes many people agree with it and it is therefore truth by consensus. That is a logical fallacy. It is argumentum ad populum to think that the majority knows what is right. And if every other Wikipedian agrees with you every other Wikipedian is wrong. In a democracy we should have have liberty, but liberty must be restrained so one doesn't hinder a neighbor's liberty. Perhaps we should have permits on Wikipedia, allowing some users to write on topics they are versed in. A permit for classical music, a permit for psychology, and a permit for philosophy. As it is now, it is absurd for people who don't know all that much about philosophy to be making grandoise philosophical claims ("this argument is circular," "that's an ad hominem") when they clearly don't know what they are talking about.

Yes Bertrand Russell is my favorite philosopher, but I never defend him irrationally. He is not without error. As a matter of fact I've never written anything on his article or talk page. But you obviously have a thing for Derrida, and you defend him irrationally, as I said; "despite the facts." You want to discredit his detractors so right in the begining of that part of the article you accuse them of logical fallacies where there are none. You haven't presented good arguments, on the contrary you and your sympathizer Sloat have shown that you don't have a rudimentary understanding of formal reasoning (or should I say one you get from only reading the wikipedia article), though you both will defend Derrida to the teeth invoking your limited knowledge of formal reasoning. I say, only philosophers and philosophy students should edit philosophy pages, who's with me? Maprovonsha172 4 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)

I have, in any case, given what answer I will give immediately following your post. I propose the following: Maprovonsha172 and I should not post to this page for three days after Maprovonsha172 has a chance to reply, neither of us should edit this entry during that time. Others will be encouraged to post their comments on this page. If there is no clearly agreed consensus at the end of that time, Maprovonsha172 and I should each offer definitive edits in response to one another and any others posting here, accompanied by a short (500 words or less) explanation, to be posted to an RfC subpage. If that fails, I'm amenable to involving a mediator. If mediation cannot be agreed, we will instead have to request arbitration. I continue to encourage Maprovonsha172 to contribute to the ad hominem page. (As it is, I believe that page uses "valid ad hominem" in a very different sense that he has used the nearly identical term "legitimate ad hominem" here. I would also note that argument ad populum has been his resort where it accords with his preconceptions.) Buffyg 4 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)

My proposal stands. I should like anyone who wants to post to post:

Should only philosophers/philosophy students be allowed to post on philosophy pages?

As it is, Buffy, you're wrong, I've shown you're wrong, and instead of answering to my arguments put forth in the first post under this new heading, you continue with your card-stacking (or as you like to say, cherry-picking) bullshit. I now understand why people don't trust wikipedia. Maprovonsha172 4 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)

It's almost laughable how wikipedia works. You say we aren't supposed to edit the article until we've reached an agreement, yet you change the article. Do you think the rules don't apply to you, or do you just make up rules as they suit you? I'm going to change it back, and you can't say I'm going against any "rule" because if it only applies to me it isn't really a rule. Maprovonsha172 4 July 2005 20:14 (UTC)

When you're the one who keeps attempting edits and can't find any consensus or even a single party in agreement, it is not unreasonable that the edit remain as it was before dispute broke out pending agreement on the change. Accordingly I have made only one change to the article in the last several days that is not a revert (and I explicitly offered this as a compromise); whereas you have continued to attempt various changes to the article without first putting up those changes for discussion. During a cooling off period, the idea is that we sit down and discuss possible edits until we either find an edit that is mutually agreeable or, failing to agree after discussing in good faith for some length of time, ask other people what they think. Therein lies the difference. This is essential to wikipedia's status as a collective enterprise.

Assuming good faith, keeping your cool, and working towards consensus via dispute resolution are matters of wikipedia policy. Indulging in personal insults and fallacious ad hominems is not. If you want to argue this to be folly, please do so on the relevant policy discussion pages. If you want to find a place to argue your proposal, I doubt that this is the place or that it will eliminate the problem at hand. Buffyg 4 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)

The current edit seems perfect, containing neither "insult" nor "ad hominem," indeed revealing both as unnecessary. I fail to forsee how anyone could find it problematic in any way. I hope it is to everyone's liking and we can put this one to rest. Maprovonsha172 4 July 2005 20:36 (UTC)

This is a step in the right direction. How about you pull that edit back to the discussion page in favour of my previous edit, so we can discuss a definitive edit. If you do that, I'll pull back my request for page protection while we try to sort this out in a more adult fashion. Buffyg 4 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)

[edit] Responding to Mapro...

First, I am fine with these edits; I think this is a lot of garbage to go through over one word. But I have to reply to many of your comments which are well beyond this one word. First, I am a university professor of communication studies, with a focus on rhetoric, and yes I do have training in philosophy and formal logic; as I said, one of the courses I teach is argumentation, and I use the Damer book Attacking Faulty Reasoning, which you cited approvingly early in this discussion. I also attend and contribute to national and international conferences on argumentation and philosophy, and I have been working in this field for well over a decade. This is all to respond to your nitpicking about qualifications -- no, I am not a "philosophy student," but that does not mean, as you imply, that I do not "know what I'm talking about." I have read Derrida, Searle, Austin, Eco, Wittgenstein, and even your hero Bertrand Russell (yawn), as well as the crap by Sokal that cannot be called "philosophy" or even criticism in any realistic sense. And I'll be frank about it -- I think Sokal is full of it, I don't think he understands half of the theorists he criticizes, and, as you admit, he says nothing that has any relevance to Derrida's work; Derrida is not a "postmodernist" in any case.

Finally your comments about logic are ludicrous here, and you would not likely do well in my argumentation class with such claims. In your example -- P1 is totally irrelevant, and P2 and C are basically the same claim reworded. It's basically an argument by definition. I'm not sure why you throw in P1 -- prob ably just to make it look like part of the claim, but it is not. And as you are well aware, the term charlatan means one who cannot be believed. It is an insult, yes, and in the context of dismissing Derrida's (or anyone else's) arguments, it is an ad hominem. Instead of, say, engaging the arguments made by Derrida (or whoever), you attack the man -- ignore his arguments, you claim; he is just a charlatan, one given to making things up. This is an ad hominem as any of the books on reasoning that you yourself cite will tell you. Your claim that this is not an ad hominem seems to be pure stubbornness. And you yourself resort to faulty reasoning -- telling me I don't know what I'm talking about and claiming some kind of authority because you took a freshman philosophy class or whatever. I defy you to quote a passage from one of your logic texts that explains that this kind of insult is a "legitimate" argument. It is clearly an ad hominem, though I could care less whether that claim is made on wikipedia. What I think is really bizarre is that this is for you the main point of entry into an anti-derrida position. Obviously you don't like Derrida's work, but instead of actually discussing it, you prefer to make a big deal out of whether calling him a charlatan is an ad hominem. It's quite telling, when all is said and done. --csloat 4 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)

"Finally your comments about logic are ludicrous here, and you would not likely do well in my argumentation class with such claims."

Professor or not, you were the one that said something was circular when it wasn't.

As for the ad hominem issue, I'm not saying it isn't ad hominem, I'm saying it's no not the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem because it follows.

"First, I am fine with these edits; I think this is a lot of garbage to go through over one word."

I couldn't agree with you more, my edit doesn't promote or attack either side. Maprovonsha172 4 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)

"Professor or not, you were the one that said something was circular when it wasn't"

ummm, it was. That was my point. As for the circular argument being an ad hominem but not the logical ad hominem fallacy, you're splitting hairs. Like I said, I defy you to point to an argumentation text that makes this distinction in such a context.--csloat 5 July 2005 01:27 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to grant any compromise with Maprovonsha172 on this issue. He is plainly wrong on the premises he has offered. Saying that this is hair-splitting is generous. If anything, we're trying to settle the issue just to stop the argument here, which has definitely dragged on. I see even less reason to compromise with someone who is willing to argue about the validity of ad hominem debate and logical formalism while making personal attacks, using fallacious ad hominem argument, using profanity, failing to demonstrate a strong command of formal argument, and admitting that he has done no research to try to review the texts cited in the article whose characterisation is in question.

We started out with the following remark: "An ad hominem attack is when one attacks the (wo)man, not her/his argument. There is a difference between an argumentum ad hominem and an insult. An insult doesn't imply argumentation, and it isn't bound the rules of logic." The contention from Maprovonsha172 that the remark wasn't argumentative and should therefore avoid that implication by calling it an insult. I have no idea how he would hope to support this contention without textual citations showing that critics, particularly those named in the section, have engaged in insult rather than argument. After a couple of exchanges, status of argumentation was no longer the issue. Maprovonsha172 argued that some ad hominems can be legitimate, although none of the hypothetical examples appear logically well-formed. Exemplary legitimate arguments would be of the form:

P1: Jacques Derrida claims to be an authority on Martin Heidegger.

P2: Jacques Derrida repeatedly misquotes Heidegger and demonstrates knowledge of only a few of his works.

C: We should consider Derrida's works on Heidegger to be charlatanism and regard any of his claims on the subject as suspect.

This argument is well-formed: you have a premise by which the subject stakes his credibility on a claim, which turns out to be false, and one thereafter ought to take further claims with prejudice against that person's credibility. This argument is fallacious:

P1: Jacques Derrida wrote extensively about Martin Heidegger.

P2: Jacques Derrida's conclusions about Heidegger often support Heidegger's reputation as a first-rate philosopher.

C: We ought to treat with suspicion anything Derrida says about Heidegger because Derrida's conclusions about Heidegger are generally favourable.

This, however, is the form of ad hominem that Maprovonsha172 has used non-hypothetically in this argument. This form is fallacy: if the premise of an ad hominem conclusion is based on what does not logically follow, then the ad hominem is logically fallacious. We have another hypothetical example that has been argued repeated and is here being disputed as fallacy. Such an argument is of the form:

P1: Jacques Derrida is a philosopher.

P2: Jacques Derrida is a charlatan.

C: We ought to suspect Derrida's philosophical claims because he is a charlatan.

Here we accept the implication of charlatanism, but the premise is assumed and the conclusion implicit in that assumption. For the argument to be logically valid as an ad hominem, the deduction must follow; here it does not: the claim is introduced without any force of logical necessity, relying instead on the strength of an assertion that must be elsewhere be demonstrated. That the logic is not demonstrated here should be reason to regard it as suspect, yet this is the sort of example that we have been asked to accept as a "legitimate" ad hominem, not on the basis of a citation from the list of argumentation texts to which Maprovonsha172 has made reference but based on a discussion from an Internet bulletin board. If one were to accept this form of argument, the apparent effect would make "legitimate ad hominems" of what was previously agreed to be a non-argumentative insult.

Let's take some less hypothetical examples:

P1: Jacques Derrida's work is difficult to read.

P2: After the death of Michel Foucault, John Searle cited his alleged cocktail party remark that Derrida was an "obscurantiste terroriste".

C: We ought to conclude that the difficulty of Derrida's work is the result of a committed obscurantism.

P1: Jacques Derrida uses apparently literary techniques in work he claims is philosophical.

P2: Jacques Derrida uses puns like "logical phallusies" in his work, demonstrating that he is clever but not that he is a philosopher of great esteem.

C: Cambridge University should not award Jacques Derrida an honorary degree on the premise that he is a philosopher.

Like it or not, these are two extremely prominent examples of the sort of argument that has been used against Derrida. In the first example, we cannot rely on the second premise because it is unverifiable. In the second example, we cannot rely on the second premise because it is patently false.

I challenge Maprovonsha172 to show that where these entirely verifiable instances are not ad hominems or not fallacies. These are among the most public attacks on Derrida's reputation, and if Maprovonsha172 wishes to take recourse to matters of reputation, this is the evidence he must face of how the strongly negative reputation which he uses as a predicate was formed. I have attempted to generalise them by arguing that they all call effectively him a charlatan. The word appears in the article in quotation marks, but it should not because it is not being offered as a strict citation, which is misleading (although I am confident I can produce citations of this comment). The point here should be underlined: not that all of Derrida's critics are at this level, but that these extremely high-profile criticisms made by people who are generally regard as extremely prestigious philosophers have made embarrassingly sloppy attacks on him. If there is any evidence that these arguments are even vaguely valid, please raise it now.

This is not to say that this is the sum total of criticism of Derrida. If there is an analogy here, it is not to the Sokal hoax: it is to the way Derrida behaved toward de Man. In 1987 Derrida offered his refutation of criticisms of de Man's work that argued for the effective exile of de Man's work from the academy. In a late interview, he offered the following comment:

So Paul de Man is still my friend. We shared a lot of things in theory; but, but... I do disagree with him on a number of points. I didn't say so immediately during the de Man affair because, strategically, if I had said at that moment in 1987, "Well, you know, Paul de Man, the way he handles deconstruction is not exactly my way,' that would have been terrible, terrible. People would have exploited this. So I didn't say that, but I knew, and he knew too, there were differences between us and now, slowly, slowly, I'm trying to say this. ("Following Theory," p. 28 in Life.After.Theory)

I did not chop the article up into sections, and, while generally objecting to the divisions that were made, I thought it poorly advised that such should be the sole content of the section. In particular, I still do not accept the division between "Derrida and his circle" and "Derrid and his critics" because, as Avital Ronell offers in "The Differends of Man," there have been some rather bruising arguments "within" deconstruction, most obviously between Derrida and Lyotard. I attempted to establish something of this with the remark: "Outside this circle Derrida's work has often been at least as controversial as within". The point I wanted to make is that we should set to one side the "dismissive critics," who have without exception done the job of discrediting themselves and should be characterised accordingly, from other critics who make more tempered claims about Derrida. Such critics need to included in the article, at least briefly. I tend to think that this project would be sufficiently expansive eventually to merit it it's own article. Breaking this out would allow us to give reasonable critics their due and identify unreasoned critics as such without any argument about bias in devoting virtually all of the section on Derrida's critics to the latter. Buffyg 5 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)

As long as everyone's alright with the current edit, to swear only one last time:

I don't give a shit. :)

Maprovonsha172 5 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)

Should only philosophers/philosophy students be allowed to post on philosophy pages?

Absolutely not. I myself am an MA philosophy student; but certainly would never have the audacity to assume that I am therefore provided license of authority over those who are not. To study philosophy does not necessary entail that you 'know what you are talking about'. In fact, I would seriously distrust anyone how who made that claim. Everybody is entitled to philosophy. But, that said, one of the most important lessons I have learned, having studied philosophy for sometime, is of the importance of self-criticism. Maprovonsha172 assumes far too much uncritically. Anyone should be allowed to post on philosophy pages and hopefully - in due time - the truth will out.

[edit] A request for some focus

What's this all about? Does somebody here want Admin / Mediator help? Uncle Ed July 5, 2005 18:07 (UTC)

Yes, please. I've made a mediation request and left messages on your talk page and that of the party with whom I've requested mediation. Buffyg 5 July 2005 20:31 (UTC)

Well, my first suggestion is to avoid making any personal remarks yourself. Leave the admonishing to me and the other admins, okay? Just talk about Derrida here. And stay off the talk page of anyone who's not being nice to you. Try this for a week, and see what happens. You got nothing to lose, right? Uncle Ed July 7, 2005 00:06 (UTC)

Point taken. Buffyg 7 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)

Again, what's all this about? It appears that the original context that resulted in this RfC has been archived. I see various comments about arguments as to whether Derrida was a charlatan, but not the original statement. In the absence of the original statement, how am I expected to comment on whether an argument was ad hominem, otherwise fallacious, insulting, or anything?

Robert McClenon 21:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: comments

There are two meanings of "ad hominem argument": the first involves attacking a view by attacking its holder (a typical, if condensed version would be to argue against vegetarianism on the grounds that Hitler was a vegetarian); the second involves attacking a view by bringinout a contradiction between it and another view held by one's interlocutor. (The former is always unacceptable, the latter is acceptable in certain specific circumstances.) The latter is the more common meaning wehn the term is used in philosophical contexts (probably because the former is so obviously fallacious).

Calling Derrida a charlatan isn't ad hominem unless the inference is drawn that his views are therefore false. In this case there's no indication that this is the case. It's not clear to me that it's an insult, either; it's a negative opinion, certainly, and in the right (or wrong) context it would be an insult — but to call it one here is needlessly emotive and strongly suggestive of a particular point of view.

The passage in question is:

"Outside this circle Derrida's work has often been at least as controversial as within; many analytic philosophers and scientists, some going so far as to regard it as pseudophilosophy, even engaging in ad hominem attacks against him, calling him a 'charlatan'."

The terms "ad hominem" and "attacks" are both mischaracterisations suggesting a clearly pro-Derrida PoV, and "insult" would be the same. This is independent of whether or not one agrees that he's a charlatan, etc. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:27, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Now I think I have it. I think it would be more accurate simply to state that many analytical philosophers and scientists consider him a 'charlatan'. The statement that some scholars consider Derrida to be a charlatan is a neutral point of view. Some claims of charlatanism are ad hominem, and some are not. Just saying that some critics consider him a charlatan is sufficient.

Robert McClenon 21:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] All Overtaken by Events ?

It appears that this whole argument is moot. The original statement on the Derrida article has been edited. The reference to 'ad hominem' attack has been deleted. The statement that some of Derrida's critics consider him a charlatan, which is an accurate characterization of a POV, is still standing, and is a reasonable NPOV summary of his controversial nature.

The original article has been corrected reasonably.

There is no need for further argument that I see.

Robert McClenon 21:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I want to thank all the Admins that chimed in. I was quite pleasantly surprised when I return to this article and see how everything turned out with your intervention. I'm glad that "ad hominem attack," and even "insult," which I argued for as in any event more appropriate, were deemed "pro-Derrida mischaracterisations."

I also want to point out the irony in Buffyg requesting intervention to fix the passage, and they put it to more or less what I said in my last edit of the article. I said, "many analytic philosophers and scientists have considered him to be a "charlatan." That was changed of course, but later on an Admin clarifies, "I think it would be more accurate simply to state that many analytical philosophers and scientists consider him a 'charlatan'."

I do want to clear one more thing up if the Admins would be so kind. It has been argued extensively on this article that the "charlatan" remark is a circular ad hominem. It has been cleared up that it isn't an ad hominem, but is it circular? Sloat said, "So the "argument" is circular at best." I argued against that point, saying, "That's not a circular argument, that's just using logic." I'll repost the argument in question and why I think it isn't circular:

P1:Jacques Derrida wrote about literature and philosophy.

P2:Jacques Derrida is a charlatan.

C:I should take what he wrote about literature and philosophy at a grain of salt.

It isn't circular because even if "I should take him/her at a grain of salt" were the exact definition of a charlatan (which it hardly is), a charlatan isn't the only type of person you should take at a grain of salt. A rage-aholic or a bitter enemy or a sociopath could be other possibilities, so it is all not perfectly symmetrical, and therefore not circular overall. A charlatan has specific modes and motivations; it is not the only path to lying. Moreover, lying is not the only path to misdirection , and only the milder charge of misdirection is needed to raise the cautionary grain-of-salt flag.

So, is it circular?

Thanks again for your level-headed mediation and your fixing the article. Maprovonsha172 15:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Mel's comments were a response to the RfC and not a mediation effort per se (hence their apperance under "RfC comments"). Per Robert's subsequent suggestion, I subsequently withdrew that RfC, as it appeared to be mooted by a subsequent edit and was occasioned only by a need for dispute resolution on the matter of the article. Mel's feedback is appreciated, but, without any prejudice to the substance of his remarks, it would be mistaken to take a single response to an RfC as some kind of final adjudication, arbitration, or mediation. Buffyg 16:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Mediation or not it's good that we're clearing things up. I would still like an answer regarding the circularity remark, Buffy; and while your feedback is appreciated, without any prejudice to the substance of your remarks, I think we've heard you on the issue. You called for the Admins to come in, why don't we hear what they have to say? Maprovonsha172 23:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:RfC; I did not invite administrative intervention on this matter but community comment. Admins are not as such privileged commentators in an RfC. The RfC was for resolving a dispute that we've already agreed has been addressed by the article, which is why Robert recommended the RfC be closed. As there is nothing to discuss in the context of the article, this is a dead letter. Buffyg 02:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Well then I'm waiting for community comment on my circularity question. Maprovonsha172 02:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Circularity

As I've been asked to comment, here are my thoughts. "x is a charlatan, therefore what x says should be taken with a grain of salt" isn't circular (because you can't go from the consequent to the antecedent), but it is a tautology (because by definition what any charlatan says should be taken with a grain of salt; a charlatan is someone who professes knowledge or expertise that he doesn't have).

The only exception to that would be, for example, if x were a medical charlatan and he offered advice on the best way to get from Athens to Larissa; one might still be less than completely trusting (someone dishonest in one area might be dishonest in another), but the charlatanry in medicine doesn't logically imply charlatanry in directions-giving. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)