sci.physics.electromag

Peter Bowditch wrote:
> Benj wrote:
>
>> On Feb 12, 2:40 pm, Peter Bowditch wrote:
>>
>>>>>> So what do I know- really?
>>>>> Nothing, by the look of things.
>>>> So you repeat your ignorance a third time and then try to "win" the
>>>> debate with ad hominem name-calling!
>>> Why do quackery supporters almost universally fail to understand what
>>> "ad hominem" means?
>> Why do you insist upon demonstrating your ignorance in a public
>> forum? Don't you know how to actually READ the things you post?
>>
>> *Ad Hominem* dear boy, is a latin phrase meaning "to the man" meaning
>> in a debate an attack upon the character of the opponent rather than
>> addressing his arguments.
>
> Why do quackery supporters almost universally fail to understand what
> "ad hominem" means?
>
>> Now I know you can do this: Read carefully
>> the above statement you posted. John said "what do I know?" and you
>> countered with "nothing by the look of things". Anyone with even a
>> modest command of the English language can easily see you said that
>> John "knows nothing"! It was an attack on John's intelligence. It was
>> NOT a response to his debating points. It is in short, an "ad
>> hominem" attack!
>
> "Ad hominem" is an attack based on an a priori assumption or
> statement. In this case John had exhibited his ignorance and then
> asked a question which I answered based on the evidence before us all.

That's incorrect and still changing, Peter. From dictionary.com:

"Usage Note: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo
of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not
its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's
emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence The Republicans' evocation of
pity for the small farmer struggling to maintain his property is a purely ad
hominem argument for reducing inheritance taxes. This usage appears to be
waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The
phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary
rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are
a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety
percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The expression now also has
a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of
an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to
attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65
percent of the Panel. · Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun
denoting personal attacks, as in "Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich
insists that he and Panetta can work together" (Washington Post). This usage may
raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic
style. · A modern coinage patterned on ad hominem is ad feminam, as in "Its
treatment of Nabokov and its ad feminam attack on his wife Vera often border on
character assassination" (Simon Karlinsky). Though some would argue that this
neologism is unnecessary because the Latin word homo refers to humans
generically, rather than to the male sex, in some contexts ad feminam has a more
specific meaning than ad hominem, being used to describe attacks on women as
women or because they are women, as in "Their recourse ... to ad feminam attacks
evidences the chilly climate for women's leadership on campus" (Donna M. Riley)"

And, Benj, stick to drumming.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein