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

So what is your solution Glenn? I respect your opinion. I dont like your
short fuse. I think Ian and others have gently raised arguments against
what you claim, which if true sounds like we are all doomed. I am probably
30 years younger than you, and have children as young as 2, so I have a
larger stake in the future than you do I suspect.

I am not at all optimistic about the future, in fact I am very pessimistic.
But, I am wearing rose colored glasses compared to you. So, again, do you
see any hope for the future? If you do, can you describe it?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
To: "'Iain Strachan'" <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 2:32 PM
Subject: 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.
>

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 19:20:26 2008