1

I have an idea: why don't you grow up and act like an intelligent adult. Leiter routinely displays his share of bravado, no question there. But he almost always gives ARGUMENTS for his positions. Try using those, and much hard drive space will not be wasted.

2

Phluaria: Follow that link to Pejman's site, and you'll find the answer to your comment about Leiter's "arguments".

And before you comment again, remember this phrase: "Open mouth, insert foot, echo internationally."

3

Phluaria,

First, let me say that this post was meant as a satirical jab at Leiter's "bravado" and was not meant to denigrate his arguments. I would love to present a counterargument if you are willing to choose one for me to take on.

Second, I have to agree with Tony. Pejman ripped Leiter pretty good so I don't know that I could do any better.

Oh, and by the way, you have a nice blog. Keep up the good work.

4

Phluaria,

I agree that the Leiterian fatality move "argument from authority" is an argument he often provides.

Damn, that was a Phluarian slip. Sorry.

5

Let me just point out that if you would only pull your nose out of the Logic textbook, you'd realize that "arguments from authority" are only fallacies in logic classes! They are perfectly valid ways of reasoning both in legal contexts and in ordinary life (e.g., we trust the reliability of testimony (sometimes solely) on the basis of who said it, everyday). And Leiter I'm sure knows this, and seems to be making the simple point that Chomsky is a very intelligent guy (I hope that much can be admitted) and that he probably wouldn't make the sloppy mistakes people are saying he does. Now that doesn't imply Chomsky is infallible, and Leiter I'm sure knows this, but it DOES mean there should at least be a presumption from the outset that Chomsky probably wouldn't make schoolboy mistakes, and the appearance of one should try to be explained some other way.

I will add that I think this debate about Chomsky's latest political views is a case of chasing one's tail. I thought everything from Manufactured Consent onwards was both half-baked and interesting. I take all his factual assertions with a grain of salt and simply try to extract the basic suggestion which, again, is usually interesting. Enough of the bantering.

6

***Let me just point out that if you would only pull your nose out of the Logic textbook, you'd realize that "arguments from authority" are only fallacies in logic classes!***

Please tell me you are kidding. Your blog says that you are a “working class philosopher.” In order to claim such a title you should at least be able to understand logical fallacies. The example you used isn’t an “argument from authority” fallacy. That type of fallacy applies only when the appeal to authority is to a person who is not a legitimate authority on the subject that is being argued for.

Chomsky is a legitimate authority on the subject of linguistics. When in comes to politics, however, he is just another schlep expressing his opinion. He is as prone to make a stupid logical blunder as anyone.

I can tell by your writing that you are an intelligent person. Yet you didn't understand the "argument from authority fallacy." The fact that you made a mistake in logic does not imply that you are stupid, just that you are wrong. No one is claiming that Chomsky is unintelligent. We’re just claiming that his reasoning is faulty.

7

Oh peccavi! You mean logic doesn't apply in real life! Damn, why have I been observing the strictures of reason and logic all my life??

With all due respect, Phluria, cut the crap.

Authority in stare decisis is to maintain consistency in judicial decisions. Not in determining the truth of factual claims. It goes without saying that "trustworthy testimony" MAY BE WRONG. Which is the whole point - if you can assess a statement on its merits, why masquerade testimony as argument? Why? Because on the merits, Chomsky's statement is nonsense?

The rest of your peaen to Chomsky and Leiter is simply bollocks. On your argument, Bertrand Russell wasn't making a "sloppy mistake" when he advocated a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union. Schopenhauer wasn't making "sloppy mistakes" about the status of woman - after all, Schopenhauer is kinda intelligent. Heidegger's involvement and espousal of Nazism wasn't a "sloppy mistake". These should probably be "explained some other way".

Do I smell apologetics?

Furthermore, creationist scientists with Phds in fields not related to evolutionary biology aren't making "sloppy mistakes" when it comes to evolution - hey, they're pretty intelligent, so they are "probably" right when railing on about evolution, merits be damned.

Honestly, I find the amount of Leiterian pandering inexplicable. And as is abundantly clear, your Phluarian apologetics are completely worthless. As a philosopher, you should be ashamed of yourself.

8

I understand the fallacies well enough. (And, no, they don't always apply to 'real life.' Might, in fact, makes right all the time.) And when Leiter says the fact that Chomsky is intelligent "might, at least, create a presumption that when he writes about subjects that make only modest intellectual demands--like foreign relations or politics--that he is unlikely to make gross mistakes", he could very well be making the suggestion that there is in fact no legitimate authority when it comes to international politics. (This makes sense if you knew Leiter's metaethical views, but the argument could be plausibly made on other grounds.) And if that's the case, then charges of argument ad verecundiam are simply irrelevant.

You don't smell apologetics. Rather, someone who mistook a three-ring circus for a forum of intelligent, sane, and civilized debate.

9

More funnies from Phluaria.

Might makes right? Are you saying that the truth value of a proposition is dependent on whoever is the strongest who says it is true? Tell me you're kidding.

And no, nothing in Leiter's appeal to authority suggests anything of that sort. The whole purpose of his piece was to suggest that Chomsky might after all be right on anti-Semitism being "scarcely existent". This is a prima facie factual question.

If you say that he wasn't making such an appeal, then you simply concede that he has no effective rejoinder to arguments that show Chomsky to be mistaken.

Either way, you're the clown.