Headline FeedsLinuxInsider Talkback
|
|
See Full Story
Two weeks ago, I wrote a column on LinuxInsider to think out loud about the fundamental differences between Microsoft's operating systems and Unix variants like Linux, Darwin, BSD and Solaris. That drew the usual kinds of responses: Some people said nice things, others critiqued my work, and a lot of slashdotters wandered off to express their own opinions. On the other hand, I got a piece of particularly negative e-mail from a person who also sent a different -- but equally dismissive and nasty -- note to the editors at LinuxInsider.
Mr. Murphy makes an excellent point in this article, but his Krauthammer-versus-Kennedy example reveals an additional issue: the use of "hate-based decision making" as an accusation.
Was Senator Kennedy making a statement out of pure ideology, or was Krauthammer merely trying to dismiss Kennedy's assertions without the burdensome effort of refuting them factually? The answer is simple, IF you can differentiate a logical argument from a fallacious one.
That's the real deficit. A logical argument can be presented in an argumentative -- even hateful -- tone, and still remain logical. In contrast, the most unemotional tone cannot turn a logical fallacy into a solid argument. Kennedy makes reference to a claim of the Bush administration, and Krauthammer rebuts the remark by focusing on one public statement (out of hundreds made) where the President did not make EXACTLY the claim on which Kennedy commented. This sophistry leads Krauthammer to the conclusion that Kennedy's statement can only be explained as the irrational ranting of someone consumed with hatred for President Bush.
The fact that such flimsy reasoning has become de rigueur in American political debate is beginning to poison technical debate. Technical discussions should be much more conducive to facts and logic, but -- as Murphy points out -- can become mired in political posturing all too easily.
Was Senator Kennedy making a statement out of pure ideology, or was Krauthammer merely trying to dismiss Kennedy's assertions without the burdensome effort of refuting them factually? The answer is simple, IF you can differentiate a logical argument from a fallacious one.
That's the real deficit. A logical argument can be presented in an argumentative -- even hateful -- tone, and still remain logical. In contrast, the most unemotional tone cannot turn a logical fallacy into a solid argument. Kennedy makes reference to a claim of the Bush administration, and Krauthammer rebuts the remark by focusing on one public statement (out of hundreds made) where the President did not make EXACTLY the claim on which Kennedy commented. This sophistry leads Krauthammer to the conclusion that Kennedy's statement can only be explained as the irrational ranting of someone consumed with hatred for President Bush.
The fact that such flimsy reasoning has become de rigueur in American political debate is beginning to poison technical debate. Technical discussions should be much more conducive to facts and logic, but -- as Murphy points out -- can become mired in political posturing all too easily.
