My esteemed colleague Emeritus Professor David Newquist and I have been at it over the definitions of logical fallacies. He begins his latest post with this:
I wish Professor Blanchard would stop reading the Northern Valley Beacon...
I can easily see why! In this latest post he provides a lengthy discourse on the one logical fallacy (out of four) that he didn't get dead wrong. Informal fallacies are defined with some precision in the field of logic. Academic philosophers may disagree as to whether any particular argument commits a given fallacy, but they are in nearly complete agreement as to the definitions of each fallacy. Professor Newquist carelessly made up his own definitions in order to tar his opponents, and I pointed out that they were way off the mark. No wonder he wants me to stop reading his blog.
My colleague appeals to his own authority:
Prof. Blanchard assumes a prodigious responsibility when he calls into question more than 55 years of the study (including a doctorate), the practice, and teaching of rhetoric. However, the point is that there are more appropriate and effective venues to resolve such accusations than on Internet blogs.
In academic disputes, personal authority carries no weight. If someone says that the moon is made of green cheese, or that Mars is a comet, it doesn't matter how long he has taught astronomy or what degrees he has earned. Professor Newquist provided definitions for the straw man, bifurcation, and equivocation fallacies that were just plain wrong. Both his sources and mine confirm this. It is a good thing that, for 55 years of study and teaching, he wasn't working in the field of logic. Otherwise he would have reason to be embarrassed.
Recent Comments