[csaa-forum] But wait, there's more

[Ben Hourigan]

A short reply, because I think this discussion has just about run its 
course.

> i specifically refer to their
> *logic*, not to their *character*. although i did use
> the pronoun ‘they’ in my next clause, i was referring
> to (as indicated in parenthesis) to what they ‘said’.
> (if i was writing in another context, outside this
> list, i would refrain from using pronouns in reference
> to ‘logic’). i use ‘said’ in reference to both writing
> and speech. of course in an academic context, notions
> like ‘combative, aggressive and hawkish’ have little
> descriptive merit, unless one was analysing the way
> these words operate in popular/political discourse. i
> use these ill-defined terms to describe their logic:

This is a jargonistic use of the word "logic," and I challenge you to 
find a logician or computer scientist who would confirm that you're 
actually talking about logic at all. Logic is the kind of rules of 
argument that operate behind statements like this: "If all A's are B's, 
and all B's are C's, then all A's are C's." You, like many humanities 
writers before you, are using the word "logic" to mean "style of 
argument," and the style you attribute to Melleuish and co. is 
dominated by 'affect,' or emotion, not logic. If you were to directly 
criticise Melleuish & co. for being all emotion and no logic, I would 
recognise this as a valid approach. I think, though, that the statement 
involved in that approach, which would say their arguments are entirely 
emotive, would be incorrect, and you go on to show why, when you 
criticise

> the way they use broad analogies and generalizations,
> their false dilemmas and false causes, the fallacious
> use of evidence,

*This* is what you should focus on, with examples, please. Here you've 
identified a point where evidence and logic are actually at issue.

>  their fallacious references to
> traditional universal notions as authority, their
> simplistic appeal populous notions, etc.

I think it's a point of contention whether authority is indeed a 
"fallacious traditional universal notion." Let's not forget how central 
authority is to the whole practice of being a CS researcher. We do have 
to do our lit reviews, and many of us are endlessly citing various  
works or theorists. Much of this behaviour is simply an appeal to 
authority. I'm not saying I like the situation.

Ben Hourigan, B.A. (Hons) (Melb.)
mail at benhourigan.com	
http://benhourigan.com