Gore's Fallacious Rhetoric Frightens Me
I was reading a story on Al Gore's recent TV appearances, and I can't help but feel a sense of dread that I couldn't put a finger on until today, when I read this example of his recurring statement on Global Warming:
"That's strange", I would say to Mr. Gore, since many prominent Climate scientists who study the CAUSES AND EFFECTS of climate change through observation of the actual phenomena say that Gore's arguments are rooted in weak argumentation and even weaker science. Now, these are scientists who study the causes and effects of climate rather than those who merely the effects in flawed computer simulations, whom Gore has marching behind him in his vain crusade.
So, basically, Mr. Gore states that he hasn't met any scientists who dispute his assertions and anyone who denies it is merely being illogical like a person claiming the moon landing didn't happen. Why? Because "The debate is over."
Such thinking troubles me. This is merely a childish way to tell you "YOU'RE WRONG, SO SHUT UP!" If people fall for this, then it creates orthodoxy and stifles debate, therefore creating a monopoly in the marketplace of ideas. The problem creates an atmosphere in which people use ad hominem attacks on those who make assertions otherwise not even for unrelated character flaws, but for the assertions themselves. What makes the attacks ad hominem? Because the person simply asserted a different idea that was different from orthodoxy, and that is the only reason they are being attacked, as if their very assertion is a character flaw. Instead, in the world of debate, both sides should counter each other with the truth and NEVER declare the debate to be over. This doesn't mean one shouldn't take sides and become a relativist. However, it does mean that debate should continue and there should be no attacks on a person for an assertion that isn't an undeserved attack or threat. Gore's temper tantrum indicates a lack of a desire for dialogue. Instead, it indicates a man wanting a world where no-one with an opinion or even information contrary to his assertions would be given a chance to speak up. And that, perhaps, is the sign of a closed-minded, dogmatic individual, afraid of the possibility that he is wrong.
Later, on Charlie Rose’s show, Gore went further. Asked by Rose "Do you know any credible scientist who says ‘wait a minute – this hasn’t been proven,’ is there still a debate?” Gore replied, "The debate’s over. The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”
Source: http://www.newsmax.com/
archives/ic/2006/6/20/134405.shtml
"That's strange", I would say to Mr. Gore, since many prominent Climate scientists who study the CAUSES AND EFFECTS of climate change through observation of the actual phenomena say that Gore's arguments are rooted in weak argumentation and even weaker science. Now, these are scientists who study the causes and effects of climate rather than those who merely the effects in flawed computer simulations, whom Gore has marching behind him in his vain crusade.
So, basically, Mr. Gore states that he hasn't met any scientists who dispute his assertions and anyone who denies it is merely being illogical like a person claiming the moon landing didn't happen. Why? Because "The debate is over."
Such thinking troubles me. This is merely a childish way to tell you "YOU'RE WRONG, SO SHUT UP!" If people fall for this, then it creates orthodoxy and stifles debate, therefore creating a monopoly in the marketplace of ideas. The problem creates an atmosphere in which people use ad hominem attacks on those who make assertions otherwise not even for unrelated character flaws, but for the assertions themselves. What makes the attacks ad hominem? Because the person simply asserted a different idea that was different from orthodoxy, and that is the only reason they are being attacked, as if their very assertion is a character flaw. Instead, in the world of debate, both sides should counter each other with the truth and NEVER declare the debate to be over. This doesn't mean one shouldn't take sides and become a relativist. However, it does mean that debate should continue and there should be no attacks on a person for an assertion that isn't an undeserved attack or threat. Gore's temper tantrum indicates a lack of a desire for dialogue. Instead, it indicates a man wanting a world where no-one with an opinion or even information contrary to his assertions would be given a chance to speak up. And that, perhaps, is the sign of a closed-minded, dogmatic individual, afraid of the possibility that he is wrong.
posted by Daniel, The Ignorant American at 5:25 PM
2 Comments:
Fallacious mmmmmmmmm wasn't that what Clinton did with that intern?
Keep up the good work - protecting America from........ everyone else.
I'll put this to you gently - the hubcaps have fallen off your wheels.
YAY! Anonymous hate messages!
Too bad they don't contain a coherent argument.
I still find it heartwarming. It's always the thought that counts. I mean, assuming that any brain functions were involved.
Post a Comment
<< Home