From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Heidegger, Hitler, Racism and logic.
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:16:19 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com


In article <1186@kepler1.rentec.com>, andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt) writes:
|> In article <Bt4stL.Lxx@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
|> >|> Logic, by itself, can be a most dangerous tool. I hope that this
|> >
|> >I hope this isn't going in a direction where an appropriate response
|> >will be, "When logic is outlawed, only outlaws will use logic".
|> >
|> >It may be fruitful to draw a distinction between logic and rhetoric
|> >here.
|> 
|> Care to elucidate?

Only that while logic deals with the goodness and badness (correctness/
incorrectness -- in the sense of being truth-preserving or not) of inferences,
rhetoric deals with the convincingness (sorry -- terrible term) of arguments.
The goal in logic is to determine whether a conclusion is warranted on the
grounds of certain premises.  It does not address the truth of those
premises or reasons why we ought or ought not believe them.  (Except
possibly from the perspective of consistency, and even then, some would
argue that this is not properly a part of logic.)

The goal of rhetoric is to convince -- whether by fair means or foul.
Logic is only one tool here, and in fact a good rhetoric book will cover
in some detail the "classical fallacies" -- partly with an eye toward educating
the reader to resist them, but also partly with an eye toward educating
the read to use them.  The example given purports to show how logic can
be dangerous, but it is a classic example of rhetoric:  false premises,
equivocation, etc.  A big lie is a big lie, and this has nothing to do
with the logic that may be employed.

|> >|> logic: Many Nazis have displayed an unswerving dedication to logic in
|> >|> their implementations of 'final solutions' [Extremely final in many
|> >|> cases] and 'medical research'.  I _understand_ the
|> 
|> For those with a strong enough stomach, one should read R. J. Lifton's
|> book _The Nazi Doctors_. He interviews some of the miscreants so you
|> get a close view (Lifton is a psychiatrist) but Lifton makes it quite 
|> clear what the actual scientific value of the Nazis was: nothing.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Not having seen it I cannot comment on this book.  However, I do recall
a couple of years ago discussing the Nazi experiments with someone, and
I remember her saying that the Nazis in fact made some substantial
advances in certain fields of medicine (I think treatment of burns may
have been one of these), but that the records were not generally accessible
and mention of the research tended to be suppressed because of the obviously
hideous nature of the experiments.  I'm not sure what "actual scientific
value of the Nazis" means here, but it is undeniable that within the
regime there were some pretty bright scientists and engineers
(who may or may not have subscribed to the political agenda).  Do recall
such things as the V1, the V2, and the first jet-powered fighter aircraft.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm