From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re:      Re: Church and Rome
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 03:55:55 GMT

In article <BuE5xv.5xE@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>>	"Launoi, the eminent Gallican, found but seventeen of the
>>	Fathers and Doctors of the Church (among whom he reckons
>>	`Fathers' down to the twelfth century) who understand St.
>>	Peter to be `the rock,' and he cites forty of the contrary
>>	opinion..."
>> 
>>   A Gallican heretic is hardly an impartial or unbiased scholar in
>>this matter, as the Gallican heresy, a sort of French version of
>
>	To argue that proposals are bad or assertions false because 
>they are proposed or asserted by radicals is to argue fallaciously
>and to be guilty of committing an argumentum ad hominem. This kind of 
>argument is sometimes called the Genetic Fallacy, because it attacks 
>the source or genesis of the opposing position rather than that 
>position itself.

   That's all well and good, but the fact that the findings were those
of a Gallican heretic was all I had to go on.  First of all, it was
claimed he found 17 Fathers to support Peter as the Rock, but 40 to
refute it.  Which 17, and which 40?  Who were they?  What authority
did these 17 and 40 have?  Are they all generally accepted as Fathers
and Doctors of the Church, or were they considered so only by Launoi?
What did they say?  Did their intended meaning match Launoi's
interpretation of what they said?  Did their "contrary opinions"
necessarily rule out Peter being the Rock, or could they have been
different symbolic meanings that did not rule it out?  Were they even
referring the Matthew 16 in what they said?

   I cannot address any specific points when no specific points have
been given.

>	In the case of your rebuttal about Launoi, there was no 
>addressing the points raised. Instead, Gallicanism was addressed.
>This is irrelevant. Gallicanism could be the most wicked club of 
>miscreants ever, with Launoi the grand poobah miscreant. But as long 
>as he correctly identified 17 of one and 40 of another, the fact of 
>his miscreantism is inapplicable to his statistics.

   Of course, 9 out of 10 dentists choose Trident chewing gum too 8-).
Seriously, though, I think the fact that he was a Gallican is
significant.  Gallicanism, by definiton, was opposed to papal primacy.
Anyone who was a Gallican naturally would try to find whatever he
could to support an argument against it.

   Regarding ad hominem arguments, let's take a look at the opening
words of the above quote: "Launoi, the eminent Gallican..."  More
specifically, let's look at the word "eminent".  This word is a
favorable adjective.  If I were to use the word "unscholarly" in its
place, I would again be accused of an ad hominem attack.  If I were to
call Launoi an "unscholarly Gallican," I would be accused of using an
unfavorable description of him to discredit his ideas.  But instead,
the above quote called him the "eminent Gallican."  I assert that
calling him "eminent" is using a favorable description of him in order
to give more credence to his ideas.  Isn't this just the reverse of ad
hominem argument?

   I think if someone can say, "The person who said this was eminent,
so you'd better pay more attention to it," it's only fair that I can
say, "No he wasn't; he was a heretic, you'd better not pay too much
attention to it."  What's more, I consider the use of the word
"eminent" by the above author to demonstrate bias on his part.  It is
not logical fallacy to point out sources of bias.  If there were
nothing to what I have said, then judges would never need to
disqualify themselves from cases in which they have personal stakes.

--Steve

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU