From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Logic vs. Rhetoric (was: J'ACCUSE JOAN CAMPBELL (and dozens of others)
Date: 18 Nov 92 02:48:29 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.

Mr Nyikos disagrees with my conclusion about him using "appeal to awe" in his
debate with Mr Margolis, and also disagrees with my assertions about his
discussing his debating skills:

> I don't recall talking about my debating skills.  I hope Mr. Butler
> documented what he said in ways other than the following:
> 
>>>>> I can run circles around most people when it comes to
>>>>> science and philosophy.
> 
> As I explained in "The Genesis of this Whole Silly SAT Flap," I was NOT
> comparing myself to the average talk.abortion regular, but rather to the
> average Joe Blow, just as Eric Marsh, the self-appointed Dragon of
> Philosophy, was doing in the post to which I was following up.  Of course,
> Larry Margolis deleted the context to make me look like a stuffed shirt.

Actually Mr Nyikos, I never saw how this argument developed; all I saw was was
an article from you (ie: <nyikos.716744788@milo.math.scarolina.edu>) cross-
posted to t.r.m.  I had assumed that you would include all the context you
thought was necessary.  The conversation went as follows (Sorry to quote so
extensively, but I didn't want anyone to think I was editing out significant
facts (ie: "slanting")):

> In <1992Sep13.155019.38256@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis 
> <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>
>>In  <nyikos.716327790@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu 
>>(Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>
>>> I have not yet begun to fight.
>
>> Then you admit that so far you've just been flailing around impotently?  :-)
>
> Sheesh. This character pretends not to recognize John Paul Jones' words.
> [Oops, I'm speculating!  Maybe he really does not recognize...]
> 
>>> I can run circles around most people when it comes to
>>> science and philosophy.
> 
>> You've certainly shown no sign of it; in fact, you've shown yourself
>> to be rather ignorant of logic and set theory.
> 
> Careful what you say, son.  I am one of the world's leading experts
> in set-theoretic topology and have reviewed 9 articles for the Journal
> of Symbolic Logic, and over a hundred for Mathematical Reviews.
> 
> This is indicative, by the way, of how absolutely fearless Larry Margolis 
> is when it comes to accusing others of ignorance, even ignorance
> of subjects on which the person he is attacking has not said much
> of anything one way or the other within his "earshot."
> 
> Fools. Angels. Fear. Tread.
> 
> Gods. Struggle. In vain.

Since the earliest context you gave was your own statement of how you "can run
rings around most people," that statement was the context for my conclusion. 
If earlier context keeps you from, as you say "looking like a stuffed
shirt," then you should have restored it rather than allowing the propagation
of that quote "as is," in another news-group, which never saw the earlier
context. 

As to the appeal to "argumentum ad vericundium," I am obviously not being
sufficiently explicit.  So I will simply get to the meat of the matter.  Mr
Nyikos, you claim that your credentials were a valid response to Mr Margolis
accusations:

>>>> I can run circles around most people when it comes to
>>>> science and philosophy.
>>>
>>> You've certainly shown no sign of it; in fact, you've shown yourself
>>> to be rather ignorant of logic and set theory.

You should note that you gave only *1* response as a complete answer to *2*
separate accusations.  Those accusations were:

	1) "You've certainly shown no sign of it" (ie: the ability to run 
	    "circles around most people when it comes to science and 
	    philosophy").
	    
and 

	2) "You've shown yourself to be rather ignorant of logic and set
	    theory."

So even if one considers your credentials a valid response to accusation #2,
your response was still "appeal to awe," in regards to accusation #1 (ie: the
accusation which clearly states that you have not shown competence).  Your
credentials are not evidence at all, that you have shown signs of "running
circles around most people when it comes to science and philosophy." Thus it
is quite valid to thereby consider your reply "argumentum ad vericundium."
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

    Knowledge consists in understanding the evidence that establishes 
    fact, not in the belief that it is a fact.
				Charles T. Sprading
				American Writer

    PS. You are quite correct that this is no longer germane to t.a;  would
    you care to move it to some logic or rhetoric newsgroup?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion