Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
My point is.. you can still crush someones theory.. but you can do it with class... and do it so that you sound nice, even while your ripping there ideas to shreds.'
thats called manners and tact, usually express amoung friends... and its fundamental to having a open discussion.
allowing for the logic of attacks, means, that i or you can be stubborn and tear and slash at any fault we see, even if it isnt really relevant to the specific issue..
and it doesnt help anyone.. and its just mean..
being nice means saying what good you can first... and then adding the "BUT...."
and finishing with your argument either way.
and in a friendly manner.. continueing the discussion.
attacks make people open to say.. things which dont need to be said in order to get any point across..
-MT
|
Since the poster apparently has little or no experience with the world of academics, especially the post-graduate variety, perhaps this small exercise re word definitions will help:
Quote:
at•tack
Pronunciation: (u-tak'), [key]
—v.t.
1. to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with: He attacked him with his bare hands.
2. to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy.
3. to blame or abuse violently or bitterly.
4. to direct unfavorable criticism against; criticize severely; argue with strongly: He attacked his opponent's statement.
5. to try to destroy, esp. with verbal abuse: to attack the mayor's reputation.
6. to set about (a task) or go to work on (a thing) vigorously: to attack housecleaning; to attack the hamburger hungrily.
7. (of disease, destructive agencies, etc.) to begin to affect.
|
When one proposes a hypothesis, the operative definition of the word
attack is #4, within the realm of real data and objective evidence. If one is unable to defend one's hypothesis, then the typical sell-out fall back position is to claim definitions #3 and #5 apply. This might be called a
ad hominem mihi fallacy, where the defender of the hypothesis wrongly claims that the presenter, not the hypothesis, is being attacked. Despite such claims, protests, and appeals to emotion (another logical fallacy), the criticism of the hypothesis remains within the scope of definition #4.
As it says in the
Advice for ATM theory supporters. sticky:
Quote:
|
3. You have not been attacked if you are told you are wrong. Only your theory is attacked.
|