Ну вот к примеру цитата из лекции этого человека: "Now, let's co nsider another kind of ad hominem argument. The second kind of ad hominem argument I'm going to call a silencer. The second kind of ad hominem argument that I want to discuss is the kind of argument that we're going to call a silencer. A silencer is an argument that starts from premises about a person who is trying to make a point or defend a conclusion, and that person's entitlement to make that point or defend that conclusion in the situation which they were doing so. It starts from premises about that and moves to a conclusion about the point that they were making, or the conclusion that they were defending. So, let me give you an example. Suppose that while Lucy is on trial for murder, and witnesses are being called to the stand, lawyers are questioning them and cross examining them. All of a sudden, Charlie runs into the courtroom, breaks open the door and yells at the top of his lungs, I saw Lucy kill the victim. Okay. Now, Charlie might say that. But in that situation, in the middle of a courtroom, that is not something that we can take into account in determining whether Lucy is innocent or guilty. The jury cannot consider Charlie's testimony, if that's what you want to call it. That testimony does not count as evidence in a courtroom. So, we could say Charlie had no right to say what he did in the situation in which he said it. He was not entitled to speak in that context. So, his testimony is invalid. Discard it, don't pay any attention to it. That's an example of, a silencer argument. It's an argument that starts from premises, about Charlie's entitlement to speak in that situation, and moves to a conclusion about whether we should pay attention to what he was saying. That's an example of a silencer argument. But that silencer argument is a justified one. It's not fallacious. Here's an example of a fallacious silencer argument. Suppose that Charlie is called to the witness stand and he's examined by one lawyer and cross examined by another lawyer. And during the course of his testimony, Charlie testi fies that he did see Lucy murder the victim. He saw with his own eyes. But, as he's testifying, he speaks in an unusual foreign accent. Now, someone might say, well, Charlie speaks with an unusual foreign accent, therefore, we should pay no attention to his testimony. Now, that's also a silencer at hominem argument. But that's an example of an unjustified silencer ad hominem argument."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2013-07-10 07:39 am (UTC)"Now, let's co nsider
another kind of ad hominem argument. The
second kind of ad hominem argument I'm
going to call a silencer. The second kind
of ad hominem argument that I want to
discuss is the kind of argument that we're
going to call a silencer. A silencer is an
argument that starts from premises about a
person who is trying to make a point or
defend a conclusion, and that person's
entitlement to make that point or defend
that conclusion in the situation which
they were doing so. It starts from
premises about that and moves to a
conclusion about the point that they were
making, or the conclusion that they were
defending. So, let me give you an example.
Suppose that while Lucy is on trial for
murder, and witnesses are being called to
the stand, lawyers are questioning them
and cross examining them. All of a sudden,
Charlie runs into the courtroom, breaks
open the door and yells at the top of his
lungs, I saw Lucy kill the victim. Okay.
Now, Charlie might say that. But in that
situation, in the middle of a courtroom,
that is not something that we can take
into account in determining whether Lucy
is innocent or guilty. The jury cannot
consider Charlie's testimony, if that's
what you want to call it. That testimony
does not count as evidence in a courtroom.
So, we could say Charlie had no right to
say what he did in the situation in which
he said it. He was not entitled to speak
in that context. So, his testimony is
invalid. Discard it, don't pay any
attention to it. That's an example of, a
silencer argument. It's an argument that
starts from premises, about Charlie's
entitlement to speak in that situation,
and moves to a conclusion about whether we
should pay attention to what he was
saying. That's an example of a silencer
argument. But that silencer argument is a
justified one. It's not fallacious. Here's
an example of a fallacious silencer
argument. Suppose that Charlie is called
to the witness stand and he's examined by
one lawyer and cross examined by another
lawyer. And during the course of his
testimony, Charlie testi fies that he did
see Lucy murder the victim. He saw with
his own eyes. But, as he's testifying, he
speaks in an unusual foreign accent. Now,
someone might say, well, Charlie speaks
with an unusual foreign accent, therefore,
we should pay no attention to his
testimony. Now, that's also a silencer at
hominem argument. But that's an example of
an unjustified silencer ad hominem
argument."