RE: [asa] $4 gas is here to stay

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Iain Strachan
> Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 12:25 PM
> To: Glenn Morton
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] $4 gas is here to stay
>
> > And you know, I simply HATE this constant use of informal logical
> fallacy of
> > ad hominem (abusive). So the blinking what if Ditmar is from an ant-
> nuclear
> > lobby????? His mother might be a dog as well. But all of that is
> totally
> > and utterly irrelevant to whether or not his arguments are right.
>
> Glenn,
>
> Cutting out the worst of your invective against me, which I've already
> made complaints to the list-owner about, as there is concern about the
> tone of debate on this list, I will respond publicly to this one
> point. I believe that whether or not Ditmar is in the anti-nuclear
> lobby is EXTREMELY important as to whether his arguments are right,
> and that there is a serious point to be made here that doesn't deserve
> to be dragged down with suggestions about whether his mother is a dog.

I didn't have a single thing to say about you. I had everything to say about
your argumentation that he is to be doubted simply because he is
anti-nuclear. To me, that is such bad argumentation that it needs to be
pointed out.

And you once again claim that his beliefs are important to his argument.
There isn't a single logic book which would verify your claim. Even
communists can tell the truth, so can anti-nuclear people. If one can't
analyze the logic of arguments here, this place has truly decended into
political correctness in my long absence, which I am soon to resume,
probably to your happiness.

>
> First. I was not ad-hominem-ing Ditmar. I didn't even suggest that
> he was in the anti-nuclear lobby - you extrapolated that from what I
> said.

Maybe I made a mistake. It wasn't ad hominem abusive, it was ad hominem
circumstantial.

"The other interpretation of the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, the
'circumstantial' variety, pertains to the relationship between a person's
beliefs nd his circumstances. Where two men are disputing, one may ignore
the question of whether his own conention is true or fals and seek instead
to prove that his opponent ought to accept it because of his opponent's
special circumstances. Thus if one's adversayf isa clergyman, one may argue
that a certain contention must be accepted because its denial is
incompatible with the Scriptures. This is not to prove it true, but to urge
its acceptance by that particular individual because of his special
circumstances, in this case his religious affiliation. Or if one's opponent
I, say a Republican, one may argue not that a certain proposition is true,
but htat he ought to assent to it because it is implied by the tenets of his
party. The classical example of this fallacy is the reply of the hunter when
accused of barbarism in sacrificing unoffending animals to his own
amusement. His reply is to ask his critic, "Why do you feed on the flesh of
harmless cattle?" The sportsman here is guilty of an argumentum ad hominem
because he does not try to prove that it is right to sacrifice animal life
for human pleasure, but merely that it cannot consistently be decried by his
critic because of the critic's own special circumstances, in this case his
not being a vegetarian. Arguments such as these are not really to the
point: they do not present good grounds for the truth of their conclusions
but are intended only to win assent to the conclusion from one's opponent
because of his special circumstances. They frequently do; they are often
very persuasive.
        "In the previous paragraph we described the use of the
circumstantial ad hominem to get one's adversary to accept a conclusion. It
is also used as the basis for rejecting a conclusion defended by one's
adversary, as when it is argued that the conclusions arrived at by one's
opponent are dictated by his special circumstances rather than based upon
reason or evidence. Thus if a manufacturer's arguments in favor of tariff
protection are rejected on the grounds that a manufacturer would naturally
be expected to favor a protective tariff, his critic would be committing the
fallacy of argumentum ad hominem (circumstantial). This type of argument,
though often persuasive, is clearly fallacious." Irving Copi, "Introduction
to Logic," MacMillan, 1972, p 75-76

Now, from your pemail I understand that I upset you when I said your
argumentation wasn't very good. If on a scientific discussion board, one
can't analyze the logic of a person's argumentation, then what is the point
of the board, to sing kumbahyah and have group hugs? I truly am sorry that
you have taken such offence to my merely pointing out the illogic of the
argumentation. But isn't science about dissecting arguments? You are
certainly welcome to point out where I am illogical (and I think you tried
with that comment to me about YECs). I will welcome it if you show me where
I am being illogical. It might take some work on your part but it will be
worth the effort to improve my thinking skills.

>
> However, if you say so-what if Ditmar is from the anti-nuclear lobby.
> I say it is actually very important, by analogy with the kind of
> arguments YEC's make, where they leave out vital bits of evidence that
> don't agree with their position. The same thing applies to people who
> strongly take one side or the other in a controversial issue, and
> nuclear power is such a controversial issue.

Iain, you are proving my analysis of your argument. Compare this with what
Copi said. Surely you can see the similarity (even if it makes you madder at
me).

If they leave out bits of evidence, then point those bits out (as you did)
but don't act as if everything the guy says can't be true. I have been
forced to acknowledge to many YECs that they were correct on various issues
of geology--because they were. For me to hold my ground and say they can't
be right because they leave bits out in other places isn't logical. Sorry,
but that is the way I feel. I am not trying to make you mad. All I care
about is the logic of the argument--which is what I criticized and you took
badly.

> My argument is very simple. Ditmar claims that self-sustaining
> tritium breeding is IMPOSSIBLE, apparently on the grounds that you
> need to use every neutron that burns a Tritium nucleus to breed
> another Tritium atom. He even underlines his point by highlighting
> that bullet point in red.

But I never quoted Dittmar as saying that, which might indicate that I don't
agree with him in that regard. I do feel that his arguments on uranium
supply, which I did cite, say something important about energy supply. And I
pointed out that few of those reactors are in operation. Since my last email
I wrote I did some research. There are 36 plants being built. The US has
none of them. If we are to replace oil with nuclear energy, I calculated
that if the world oil production declined at 4% per year, we need to build
80/year with the number required in the future declining with the decline
rate of oil. At $1.4 billion per plant, we would need something like $110
billion in construction. Yes we could do it, but will we? I think not.

>
> The argument is patently nonsense, and it must be obvious that
> millions of pounds of research money wouldn't get spent on a
> technology that could never work for such a simple reason. Beryllium
> is used as a neutron multiplier, and Ditmar omits to tell us this, and
> lets us believe that the technology is attempting to achieve the
> impossible.
>
> Now I don't know if Ditmar is in the anti-nuclear lobby or not & I
> never suggested that he was. But he's either a very sloppy researcher
> and didn't bother to find out how you get a breeding ratio > 1, or if
> he IS in the anti-nuclear lobby, then I suggest that IF THAT IS THE
> CASE, then he is being deliberately dishonest in not giving us the
> facts. Reading his talk one might think "How stupid all those
> scientists are being expecting to get self-sustaining tritium
> breeding!"

Technically you are correct that you didn't call him anti-nuclear but merely
cited (why I don't know) that he is praised by anti-nuclear people. That
isn't much different than logically saying that Obama is wrong on health
care because he is supported by William Ayers, or that he is not to be
trusted as president because he said there were 58 states. The point of his
praising by the anti-nuke advocate shouldn't have been raised in an arena
where facts and logic are supposed to rule. And, in this note you say it is
important to his argument about uranium if he is in the anti-nuclear lobby
or if he is wrong on tritium. Logically I don't see the connection. He might
be right on one issue and wrong on another. I find myself that way many
times. If I have to be correct on absolutely everything before I can be
believed on anything, then I must tell you, don't believe a word I say. But
then, applying that standard to you, I don't think I need to believe you on
anything either.

>
> And finally, Glenn, I did not miss your point that we probably need
> alternative energy much sooner than nuclear can provide. It's a very
> worrying situation, and I'm not suggesting that nuclear is going to
> save us. I was merely criticizing the evidence you presented.

Well, in my mind, bringing up the possibility of breeder plants which will
never be built is hardly dealing with the points I raised. If we don't'
build them, I stand by the argument. We will run out of uranium fuel before
we can turn U238 into other isotopes.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jun 7 14:32:26 2008