nonoise wrote:
[snip]
There are, sad to say, cases where ad hominem attacks are warranted, and
this is one of them. The original post is off-topic, but that's a minor
offense on Usenet. However, the claims _ARE_ laughable, and anyone who
champions such nonsense deserves to be offered a discount on a bridge:
if nothing else, it's a chastening reminder that, in the future, those
who were disposed to believe them should drop a gold brick on the ground
before negotiating a purchase.

William

William, I was with you until this paragraph. Even the most laughable
claims, in my opinion, warrant one of two reactions online: Ignore
them, or explain, using facts and not just assertions, why you believe
them to be nonsensel. I disagree that ad hominem attacks are EVER
appropriate in response to a claim concerning UFOs, fuel line magnets,
political conspiracies--you name it. My usual response is to roll my
eyes and move on. The only reason I posted this time was because the
issue has been researched by responsible parties and I thought it might
be worthwhile to make that known.

Why bother with personal attacks? The faceless, no-consequences
Internet makes that too easy as it is. No way do I believe that some of
the meanspirited garbage that stains too many NGs (spend 15 minutes on
antiques radio/phono or shortwave) would come from somebody's mouth in
a real conversation, even one conducted over the phone and not in
person.

Avery W3AVE wrote:
nonoise wrote:
[snip]
There are, sad to say, cases where ad hominem attacks are warranted, and
this is one of them. [snip]

William

William, I was with you until this paragraph. Even the most laughable
claims, in my opinion, warrant one of two reactions online: Ignore
them, or explain, using facts and not just assertions, why you believe
them to be nonsensel. I disagree that ad hominem attacks are EVER
appropriate in response to a claim concerning UFOs, fuel line magnets,
political conspiracies--you name it. My usual response is to roll my
eyes and move on. The only reason I posted this time was because the
issue has been researched by responsible parties and I thought it
might be worthwhile to make that known.

Why bother with personal attacks? The faceless, no-consequences
Internet makes that too easy as it is. No way do I believe that
some of the meanspirited garbage that stains too many NGs
(spend 15 minutes on antiques radio/phono or shortwave)
would come from somebody's mouth in a real conversation, even
one conducted over the phone and not in person.


You are correct, in the sense that an "ad hominem" attack is against a
person instead of his/her argument: it's a logical fallacy, and should
be avoided for that reason. However, as you point out, another poster
had already refuted the claim: I though it obvious that no further
evidence was needed.

Someone who asserts that the moon is made of green cheese, or that the
earth is flat, or that magnets affect gasoline - or that Africans are
inferior - should be answered with skepticism. Even the most wild
speculation can attain the status of "fact" when enough people believe
it: my father was fond of saying "A million Frenchmen can't be wrong",
and Joseph McCarthy proved that Americans are never short on
gullibility, so I remain convinced that an appeal to preconceived
notions, either of racial purity or oil company conspiracies, deserves,
if not derision, at least to be received with an extra measure of caution.

In other words, the burden of proof is on the claimant: if someone
believes that magnets can improve gasoline mileage, let him step up and
demonstrate it. If he can't, let him take his lumps.

I'm sorry to crabwalk here, but I believe my concerns are real, and I
have seen otherwise "normal" people hire "Feng shui" "practitioners" to
place magnets in their work cubicle (so as to assure that the stars were
in alignment or the worm had turned or the entrails were favorable, or
whatever it is that convinces "normal" people to open their wallets).
The one constant of the human race is that David Hannum _was_ right:
"There's a sucker born every minute".

Our history has shown that a million suckers _can_ be wrong, but it also
demonstrates, as Galileo would attest, that they can be very vicious
when confronted with the newest version of the truth. I know I make your
argument for you here, but with a point in mind: those with outlandish
ideas had best be ready for a lot of hard stares and possess a lot of
hard facts.

William
P.S. Suggestions as to a more appropriate forum are, of course, welcome.

--
A little learning is a dang'rous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring;
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.
-- Alexander Pope, Essay on Criticism

nonoise wrote:

You are correct, in the sense that an "ad hominem" attack is against a
person instead of his/her argument: it's a logical fallacy, and should
be avoided for that reason. However, as you point out, another poster
had already refuted the claim: I though it obvious that no further
evidence was needed.

Someone who asserts that the moon is made of green cheese, or that the
earth is flat, or that magnets affect gasoline - or that Africans are
inferior - should be answered with skepticism. Even the most wild
speculation can attain the status of "fact" when enough people believe
it: my father was fond of saying "A million Frenchmen can't be wrong",
and Joseph McCarthy proved that Americans are never short on
gullibility, so I remain convinced that an appeal to preconceived
notions, either of racial purity or oil company conspiracies, deserves,
if not derision, at least to be received with an extra measure of caution.

In other words, the burden of proof is on the claimant: if someone
believes that magnets can improve gasoline mileage, let him step up and
demonstrate it. If he can't, let him take his lumps.

I'm sorry to crabwalk here, but I believe my concerns are real, and I
have seen otherwise "normal" people hire "Feng shui" "practitioners" to
place magnets in their work cubicle (so as to assure that the stars were
in alignment or the worm had turned or the entrails were favorable, or
whatever it is that convinces "normal" people to open their wallets).
The one constant of the human race is that David Hannum _was_ right:
"There's a sucker born every minute".

Our history has shown that a million suckers _can_ be wrong, but it also
demonstrates, as Galileo would attest, that they can be very vicious
when confronted with the newest version of the truth. I know I make your
argument for you here, but with a point in mind: those with outlandish
ideas had best be ready for a lot of hard stares and possess a lot of
hard facts.

William
P.S. Suggestions as to a more appropriate forum are, of course, welcome.

At the risk of repetition and belaboring the obvious, there isn't
anything at all in your response with which I disagree. "An extra
measure of caution"..."answered with skepticism": exactly.

sci.skeptic is one place that someone who is genuinely curious about an
improbable claim
might find help. It is no place for those who believe regardless of the
lack of evidence.