How to argue

Dear WSNers: It seems that many on this list are committed to a fallacious
form of reasoning. Jim Blaut, for example, and a person whose work I
respect, makes the following argument:

"What mystifies me about the population bombers and mebbe some people on
this list is that they don't realize -- literally, don't realize -- the
racism, cultural or psychological, that underlies their theory."

It doesn't underlie my theory. And if it did underlie other pop theories,
it doesn't matter. This is a fairly simple logical point. You can't saddle
everyone who argues in favor of pop optimization with racist views because
some people who have argued in favor of pop optimization in the past may
have been racist. To be specific, this way of reasoning is either a straw
man or an ad hominem or both.

Then Blaut argues: "They start out from the premise that certain categories
of people can't control their sexual urges and this is why they have too
many babies."

I don't remember anyone saying that. Maybe we should stick to the arguments
that people give rather than one's that might sound similar made by
racists. Differing sexual urges are not a part of my theory.

Blaut committs the same fallacy I have been complaining about again when he
writes: "Malthus was wrong, but remember, too, he was a famous racist."
Again, it doesn't matter. Deal with the argument.

Randy Groves