Bush Admin's Top Environmental Advisor Takes Job at Exxon.

[jBirch]

Which is as may be. Nevertheless, faced with an argument/statement/action by an individual, to assume that it can be explained by nothing more than his past job or jobs rather than, oh, I don't know, that it's just something he believes in personally, is unwarranted and based in fallacious thinking.

Is it possible that, like you and I or anyone else, this man could simply be acting on personal convictions or personal foolishness or arrogance or even orders from higher up, rather than because he is a puppet of Big Oil or a brainwashed drone in their service in all things?

Again, statistics versus proof. The trend is that, while the cause *MAY* be due to something else, the person's previous job history is important in identifying the trend of probable action. In that regard, the person's circumstances have direct bearing on the probable outcome and are certainly fair game for introduction in a logical argument. It is not a fallacy, in this case, because the comments MOST PROBABLY have bearing on the determination of truth of premises.

No, when the circumstances have not been SHOWN to have a bearing...which in this case they have not. It is possible that they do, but not certain. It wants proof.

Well, we disagree on this supposed point of fact. I believe that they HAVE been SHOWN to have a bearing.

That's not the impression I got. The argument, boiled down to its simplest, was IMO "This action because he's an oil man". No pattern of specific acts has been adduced...you're positing assumed acts under a series of circumstances, eg "Bush cabinet" and "lobbyist". If you mean to say that the actions taken were BECAUSE he was in those positions, then we have two more ad hominems. They multiply!

Yes, and this is why I said your initial Ad Hominem label was correct, though the circumstantial subtyping was not. Ess needs to show that actions in those job categories lead towards the statistical trend of "working for Big Oil", which, given the nature of the assertion, shouldn't be that hard. *grin*

The editing of the report was the act; the circumstances advanced as "explanation" of the act were his former jobs. No argument built on such shifting grounds can fairly be used to buttress yet another argument, ie "Bush is biased toward oil interests". The first allegation must be proven first, not just waved out there and assumed to be valid.

Yes and no. Again, we're back at statistics. The act was explained by the trend of previous acts.

James.

[Philistine]

{snip}
The editing of the report was the act; the circumstances advanced as "explanation" of the act were his former jobs. No argument built on such shifting grounds can fairly be used to buttress yet another argument, ie "Bush is biased toward oil interests". The first allegation must be proven first, not just waved out there and assumed to be valid.

Isn't the argument "Bush is biased toward oil interests" supported just by his appointment of a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute with no environmental or scientific experience as chief of staff for the White House Council for Environmental Quality?

--Philistine

[jeff]

Yes, of course, along with many pro-oil industry actions the Administration has fostered. It would be foolish to start with an assumption of neutrality and even-handedness.

[Inquartata]

Isn't the argument "Bush is biased toward oil interests" supported just by his appointment of a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute with no environmental or scientific experience as chief of staff for the White House Council for Environmental Quality?

--Philistine

Quite possibly, especially if it is one act in a series tending to form a
pattern---which I would have to admit that it appears to do. Though there could still be other possible explanations ( such as "One hires the people one knows, because one knows their abilities first hand, not from a resume" ) also exist. Hence it cannot be called an unequivocal certainty...

However, that argument is on much more solid ground than the one which began this thread.

N.B. I will return to this argument Sunday. There's no time for concentration on difficult issues during the week ( since mostly I post from work ); but Sunday is usually slow...

[Inquartata]

The judge only instructed you on the law, and how you were to do your job. The judge did not instruct you as to who was more credible than whom.

Indeed. And jurors are not precluded from using good logic in this process of evaluating credibility, instead of stumbling into howling fallacies. A consummation devoutly to be wish'd, even if on the actual legal side it has been observed ( by no less an authority than Oliver Wendell Holmes ) that "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience". )

[Inquartata]

The argument about whether past employment is relevent to projecting suitability for future employment and as a predictive indicator of intent, is not fallacious on the grounds you provided.

Ah, but I did not say that it was. I said that it was not relevant to evaluating the truth or falsity of a given statement, or the rectitude of a given action.

Might I also mention that throwing logical fallacies about like darts on a lawn is not a productive way to engage in discourse.

"That is never too often repeated which is never sufficiently learned".

I think of argument rather as I do of fencing: a give and take of attack and defense, parry and riposte. If an opponent is susceptible to a particular tactic, one keeps on using it until the opponent stops making the mistake which permits it to work---or until one wins the bout...

Aristotle intended them to identify weakness in argument as an illustrative exercise to put one's own arguments through before presenting them.

Did he? He told you this? Man, and I though I was old...

In fact, the repeated pointing out of errors in anothers arguments is the logical fallacy of "Style Over Substance". That the manner in which an idea is discussed is more important than the idea itself.

That is not one of Aristotle's. Indeed it is not even on every list of the informal fallacies.

However, you are correct on a simplistic level. The validity of an argument is unaffected by how it is presented. But this does not mean that we must admit the correctness of conclusions arrived at fallaciously. I am willing to hear proof that the man's act merely serves oil industry interests or is otherwise nefarious. But such proof cannot consist only of the fallacious "he used to be a lobbyist for the oil industry"...

The proper counter to this fallacy, after all, is:

"In order to show that this fallacy is being
committed, show that the style in this case does not affect the
truth or falsity of the conclusion".

In this case, the ad hominem circumstantial is about all the "proof" we have of the validity of the conclusion...

[Inquartata]

Darn, unable to assign rep point, as I'm instructed to spread it around some more before giving another to JBirch. Ah well.

Hey, you could always give it to me! ( Bet you've never done THAT before! )

Regarding the point of (apparently) formal logic: it, and furthering esskreemr's comments, it's worth remembering that the appearance of logic is a powerful partisan tool in an argument.

A powerful tool, certainly. "That's what I'm on about, isn't it? If people would only realize---"

( And yes, that's the fallacy of irrelevant humor, which alas was born without a Latin name. )

As for "partisan", or perhaps tendentious, well, sure. It can be. But that doesn't show that an argument using logic is wrong, does it? What a bizarre conclusion THAT would be?

BTW, I can't resist: discussing inductive fallacies is informal logic, not formal. Formal is Venn diagrams and truth tables and syllogisms...

I know, I know. I'm doing it again.

It's common, if the facts of the case are weak for you, or support the other side, to change the subject to procedure, rules of logic, or analogies to other topics altogether, to obscure the fact that the facts are against you.

So...one need only shrug and admit that the original argument was fallacious and move on to citing actual FACTS, instead of defending to the death the proposition that it was NOT fallacious. IOW, it takes two to have a change of subject, one to initiate and one to go along with it.

Meanwhile, discussion of the facts remains difficult if the argument is "This guy is just shilling for the oil industry", because the relevants facts would concern intent. And we don't have much to look at on that score. Not yet, at least.

that's not the claim I make in my posts, nor is it what esskreemr said in his opening post that started this thread. Instead, it is highly suspect behavior: coupled with Cooney denaturing documents that stated scientific results that were contrary to the interests of the oil industry and the industry-friendly Administration.

In fact, that's exactly the claim, as I read it.

"Part of his "advice" apparently was to "delete dire climate change warnings in US government reports." Prior to his position as a Bush lackey, he was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute." Followed by the rolleyes. The meaning is clear: the act was a consequence of the status. No other possibilities are admitted. No facts are in evidence. There's merely the wink-wink assertion that A, therefore B...

Any argument that pooh-poohs exposure of Cooney's industry connection and decrying his action are invalid because they are not proven beyond a shadow of doubt is an attempt to distract from the facts of the situation: an industry flack changing scientific results in order to support his economic interests.

You started out well enough, and then end up back at the same fallacy again.
"Facts"? What "facts"? The "fact" you adduce is the very conclusion you try to demonstrate using the fallacy. And now you add circulus in demonstrando: the conclusion is a premise of the argument leading to the conclusion!

How very discouraging.

[Inquartata]

I did not begin by looking at his Cooney's employment, as you incorrectly assumed.

You are correct; that was Ess. You have taken up the gauge in defense of his allegation, but you the initial fallacy was not yours. I apologize for having acted as though it were and for accusations made on that basis.

Changing "is" to "may be" is not a significant change in your book?

Depends on what your definition of "is" is.

But seriously, given the remaining uncertainty about the matter, I'd say it reflects a more prudent adherence to reality. Adherence to reality is a good thing, no?

The former, attached to "guilty" is a conviction, the latter acquittal.

Back to the law again. This is not IMO a productive thoroughfare through the present debate. I mean, any venue where a logical fallacy is raised to the status of a guiding principle, as the law does by institutionalizing the fallacy argumentum ad antiquitatem into the great maxim ofstare decisis...

There were multiple changes. I read them. They markedly weakened and changed the document.

And I have not read it all, and thus cannot dispute your conclusion. This is what I would have preferred to hear from the outset, rather than a defense of the judgement on the basis of employment history. I yield the point on this basis...although I'm still not convinced that the weakening was not properly done. ( I do wish it had been done by someone with scientific credentials equal to the task. )

Speaking of guilty vs. innocent, I see you now understand what I stated previously about jury instruction. Again, you assumed incorrectly.

Very well. Though I suppose I could draft one of your tactics from earlier debates and insist that it was really your fault for not being "more clear"...

Aristotle and I are on comfortable grounds together, but I think he might not like your misusing his work.

Saying so makes it true? Gee, you seem to like that method in your Socioeconomic posts: assertions repeated over and over again must be true, eh?

You have but to ask for the thinking behind them, and the names of those who first asserted them. I am not enough of an economist to devise my own theories; I merely pass on those of the authorities of the past. Which is more than I can say about your "comfort" with Aristotle's...

[Inquartata]

the person's previous job history is important in identifying the trend of probable action. In that regard, the person's circumstances have direct bearing on the probable outcome and are certainly fair game for introduction in a logical argument. It is not a fallacy, in this case, because the comments MOST PROBABLY have bearing on the determination of truth of premises.

You have just argued that there can never in fact be an instance of ad hominem ( circumstantial), because everything could have some conceivable effect on "probability" and "trends". I cannot accept that and will not stipulate to it. Go summon up Aristotle's ghost and try the theory on him.



[quote]I believe that they HAVE been SHOWN to have a bearing.[/quotee]

Shown as in "by the allegations that it does show it to have a bearing"? Because I must still be missing the facts that connect his job history to his editing of this particular report....

Yes, and this is why I said your initial Ad Hominem label was correct, though the circumstantial subtyping was not.

Now I'm confused. The only other sort of ad hominem is "abusive'...basically name-calling. "A can't be trusted because he's a liar who beats his wife"---that sort of thing. Apart from "lackey", a pretty mild appelation, I don't see where Ess was just hurling invective as a premise for discounting the act in question...

Ess needs to show that actions in those job categories lead towards the statistical trend of "working for Big Oil", which, given the nature of the assertion, shouldn't be that hard.

No---that would only advance the argument that "he worked in the oil industry", not that "he has done X because he worked in the oil industry"...

Again, we're back at statistics. The act was explained by the trend of previous acts.

James.

Again, WHICH previous acts? ( And if you say "Working for the oil industry" I'm going to have an aneurysm. )

[jBirch]

You have just argued that there can never in fact be an instance of ad hominem ( circumstantial), because everything could have some conceivable effect on "probability" and "trends". I cannot accept that and will not stipulate to it. Go summon up Aristotle's ghost and try the theory on him.

Oh heck, and you've argued that EVERYTHING is ad hominem ( circumstantial), because anything could have some conceivable effect on "probability" and "trends" and anything that does, is circumstantial. I think you're getting ridiculuous in this sidetrack from the original argument. Are you saying that an individual's job history has no bearing on relevent probable future actions? Sounds absurd.

Shown as in "by the allegations that it does show it to have a bearing"? Because I must still be missing the facts that connect his job history to his editing of this particular report....

Sorry, I was taking the editing of the report and the job history as supporting the assertion that this guy is a shill for Big Oil.

Now I'm confused. The only other sort of ad hominem is "abusive'...basically name-calling. "A can't be trusted because he's a liar who beats his wife"---that sort of thing. Apart from "lackey", a pretty mild appelation, I don't see where Ess was just hurling invective as a premise for discounting the act in question...

The discounting had nothing to do with it, IMHO. The original assertion was sensationalistic that Bush was receiving bad advice from this guy who is a shill for Big Oil and that because he was receiving this advice, he was making judgements that were totally partisan. The ad hominem abusive is calling Bush a shill for Big Oil, which hasn't been shown.

No---that would only advance the argument that "he worked in the oil industry", not that "he has done X because he worked in the oil industry"...

Ok, to be clear, I think there are a couple of assertions in question here:

1) This guy is working for Big Oil. Ie// His actions are unreasonably biased towards what is in the interest of the Energy Sector.
2) He is using his position to influence Bush unreasonably in favour of policy decisions that favour Big Oil.

Again, WHICH previous acts? ( And if you say "Working for the oil industry" I'm going to have an aneurysm. )

Editing the report. Look the argument is that his actions as a lobbiest and his employment by Big Oil to further their interests points to a trend of favourtism that supports the allegation that he edited the report because of his prior experiences. The particularly indicative employment in my opinion is as a lobbyist because the job of a lobbyist is to reinforce exactly the kind of unreasonable propositions that he is accused of causing. And it's not circumstantial because the circumstances have relevence. These particular circumstances to this particular action.

James.

[Inquartata]

Are you saying that an individual's job history has no bearing on relevent probable future actions?

No---that it has no bearing on the ability to tell the truth or falsity of a statement he makes or the propriety of an action. In short, my job history does not enable you to explode an argument I may make tomorrow, or to assign a reason to an action I may take next week.

Sorry, I was taking the editing of the report and the job history as supporting the assertion that this guy is a shill for Big Oil.

Oh, I see. A proves B, and B proves A?

The discounting had nothing to do with it, IMHO. The original assertion was sensationalistic that Bush was receiving bad advice from this guy who is a shill for Big Oil and that because he was receiving this advice, he was making judgements that were totally partisan. The ad hominem abusive is calling Bush a shill for Big Oil, which hasn't been shown.

I don't recall Bush being discussed at all, at least not directly. The ad hominem was the imputation of the fellow's action to his industry employment and associations. Where does Bush enter into it?

Ok, to be clear, I think there are a couple of assertions in question here:

1) This guy is working for Big Oil. Ie// His actions are unreasonably biased towards what is in the interest of the Energy Sector.
2) He is using his position to influence Bush unreasonably in favour of policy decisions that favour Big Oil.

I agree that #1 is on the table, but I think the implied direction of causality was the other way 'round on #2...

Editing the report. Look the argument is that his actions as a lobbiest and his employment by Big Oil to further their interests points to a trend of favourtism that supports the allegation that he edited the report because of his prior experiences.

Again, A proves B and B proves A. He edited the report because he serves Big Oil, and he serves Big Oil because he edited the report. Begging the question...

[jBirch]

No---that it has no bearing on the ability to tell the truth or falsity of a statement he makes or the propriety of an action. In short, my job history does not enable you to explode an argument I may make tomorrow,

Right. No dispute.

...or to assign a reason to an action I may take next week.

We disagree on fundamental logical principals here.

Oh, I see. A proves B, and B proves A?

No. A proves B. If he is a shill for Big Oil then he edited the report to remove information contrary to the position of Big Oil. His actions as a lobbyiest and as an employee and active in various Big Oil support groups shows that he was most likely a shill for Big Oil. Therefor, he most likely edited the report to remove information contrary to the position of Big Oil. I was not proposing that editing the report is what proves he's a shill.

I don't recall Bush being discussed at all, at least not directly. The ad hominem was the imputation of the fellow's action to his industry employment and associations. Where does Bush enter into it?

I think I see where we went awry. Let's put it this way, if we were going to predict whether he would or would not edit the report, before the action was taken, would his previous employment be important in making that prediction accurate?

James.