From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 23:29:58 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> And, speaking of rational discussion [as opposed to fallacious 
rl> argumentation], can we determine the truth or falsity of a man's 
rl> statements by appealing to his credentials, the number of his 
rl> published works, etc, etc?  Probably not, yet for some strange 
rl> reason you've continued to insist that truth is fallacy and 
rl> fallacy is truth in those special cases where it suits your 
rl> convenience.  

From article <1992Dec19.185031.16722@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
gp> I'm am not discussing the "truth or falsity" of a statement.  
gp> What I am discussing is the value of a man's professional 
gp> opinion.  And YES you can determine the value of a man's 
gp> professional opinion based on his performance in the field in 
gp> question.  Do you agree that the value of a person's professional 
gp> opinion can be, at least in part, by that persons performance in 
gp> that that field?  

I agree that information about credentials is better than no 
information whatsoever in those situations wherein we are obliged 
to judge the quality of an expert's advice when we, ourselves, 
are unfamiliar with the field.  I don't agree that you can 
dismiss the counsel of an opponent simply because he lacks 
credentials in a particular field.  This is especially true in 
the case at hand.  Given the bibliographical tools at the 
disposal of most MD's, it doesn't make sense to argue that a 
particular doctor doesn't have a grip on the evidence simply 
because he has a degree in medicine rather than "nutrition 
science".  

As I've pointed out previously, I regard your use of the 
"credentials" argument in the PCRM~milk controversy with some 
amusement.  And why?  Because you yourself readily accept summary 
judgments without regard for credentials when it suits your 
convenience to do so.  As an example, I'll point to the claims 
concerning Hitler's alleged advocacy of animal rights.  

gp> Have you not noticed that none of the other AR advocates here on the net
gp> have come to your defense?  Perhaps they are ashamed to claim you as
gp> well?  I cannot blame them.

rl> Nice innuendo, Greg.  Let's suppose that the other AR advocates are
rl> ashamed of my postings.  In such a case, would their shame somehow
rl> make your arguments more truthful?   [argumentum ad populum]

gp> No but it speaks clearly of the methods you use.

You claim to be a scientist and you claim to have respect for the
truth, yet you attempt to gain points in the discussion by a back-
handed suggestion that other AR advocates in the forum are ashamed
of my postings.   Your suggestion may be true, or perhaps it's
just another stupid, cheap shot, but either way, it doesn't lend 
credence to your position.  It's a classical example of an "argumentum
ad populum" fallacy.   I find it somewhat amazing that you would set
yourself the task of "getting me" intellectually, as you mentioned
in a previous post, yet rely on illogical insults to accomplish your
task.

> ...
rl> Why don't you cut out the naive "nazi" crap...

gp> Russell, have you read any of the articles we referenced on the 
gp> issue?  Have you looked for the book on I ref.  A book written by 
gp> a historian in the 1930?  Or is your word that are statements are 
gp> false suppose to be the be all and end all of truth?  

As I mentioned previously, I've read Hitler's book and Speer's 
memoirs;  I've read several of the major textbooks dealing with the 
nazi era;  and I've also read several dozen papers written by 
professional students of history dealing with nazi political 
ideology.  None of them lend credence to the claim that the nazi's 
were animal rights advocates in any meaningful sense.  

You seem to think that you can isolate animal rights themes in the
nazi movement the way a biologist might attempt to isolate a set
of microscopic particles, and henceforth argue that you've gained
some special insight into the "evils" that you perceive in the
opposition.

rl> ... and respond to 
rl> my past two postings concerning the origin of "rights".  If 
rl> you've lost them, I'll be happy to repost.  In particular, I'd 
rl> like for you to explain your notion that it's bad to torture 
rl> humans only because humans can make moral choices.  

gp> Yes I have lost them.  And I will be happy to talk your ear off 
gp> concerning the issue.  (Because for one thing you misrepresent my 
gp> opinion in the statement above) 

That wasn't my intention.

gp> But, almost two months ago I asked you for a ref on the alleged 
gp> cat experiments.  I request the ref again.  As soon as I receive 
gp> them I'll fill your in on my views on torture.  
gp>
gp> I'll be off the net for the next week or so.  That should give 
gp> you plenty of time to find the ref.  Feel free to talk about me 
gp> when I'm gone.(No, that's not what Billy Holiday said.  How'd 
gp> that go again....) Maybe if you hurry Russell you can post it and 
gp> it will be gone by the time I get back.  

I have the "cat shooting" references on my desk, Greg.   I had 
hoped to delay the discussion of this particular theme until
I have sufficient time to post the available material.   If I'm
still short of time when you return, I'll go ahead and post the 
references alone.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals