Bad Moves
"Butterflies and Wheels (fighting fashionable nonsense)":http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/ fighting fashionable nonsense is an excellent site for those interested in all aspects of Philosophy. Articles, book reviews, news, and a section I found both useful and fascinating called Bad Moves. This is a weekly column by Philosopher Julian Baggini on bad argumentative moves and how to detect them. Here is an example and a timely that is right on target.
Bad Moves: Absence and evidence By Julian Baggini "It depends on Saddam. If he co-operates with the inspectors in allowing them not just access but telling them what material he has and allowing them to shut it down and make Iraq safe and free of weapons of mass destruction then the issue is over, but he is not doing that at the moment." Tony Blair, 26 January 2003 (Source: the Guardian, 27 January 2003) The British and American governments have consistently claimed that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. But they have not helped their case by rigging the rules by which their claim is tested. Here's the problem."continued here":http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/badmovesprint.php?num=9
Comments
Thanks for the link, Norm--I bookmarked it immediately. It has some very good stuff. I fear, though, that some of the articles begin to adopt a 'debunking' rhetoric. I think I commented on this phenomena a few months ago.
One example from Butterflies and Wheels is their treatment of so-called science studies. When I worked in DC for a science-politics think tank, I did reasearch on this stuff, and I had my share of laughs at silly academics in the humanities making crazy claims about science. But as many debunkers do, the author of the article paints the currently one-sided debate as a purge of "nonsense"--still to be purged of course, are those people who study science who are still taken seriously. But in fact most of these are sociologists of knowledge and philosophers of science who are doing very good work. I fear that the crusade-like debunking of some lefty science studies only conirms the ignorant dismissal of philosophy and sociology of science by scientists who don't know much at all about philosophy or sociology.
Being fashionable surely doesn't make a thing true--but it doesn't make it false either.
Sorry--I guess this a comment on the link but not your post.
Posted by: dende blogger | March 4, 2003 11:41 AM | Reply to this comment
Good points as usual. As you might have expected I was attracted by the Bad Moves section if you haven't read the one on slippery slopes do, it was excellent.
Posted by: Norm | March 4, 2003 1:31 PM | Reply to this comment
we made the movie in one morning, that there was a conflict meant that was what we were talking about. His placement, kind of like an admissions. we should potlight jon more in eleven. That was ten and in my view it got a 3 and a half stars, It was funny and fun to work on.
"That was a lot of fun" Jennifer Sands said. "I hope I'm in eleven."
Posted by: anon | February 2, 2004 9:32 AM | Reply to this comment
we made the movie in one morning, that there was a conflict meant that was what we were talking about. His placement, kind of like an admissions. we should potlight jon more in eleven. That was ten and in my view it got a 3 and a half stars, It was funny and fun to work on.
"That was a lot of fun" Jennifer Sands said. "I hope I'm in eleven."
Bad moves is an option better taken to the contest of writing humor on the fly, like the dog said, "I know..."
Good contest of the authority of comedy, good reason to spit for nothing better than everyday fun..." Welsley about the lackadazical movie
Posted by: anon | February 2, 2004 9:33 AM | Reply to this comment