Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Peter Staudenmaier's Dishonesty

Expand Messages
  • ted.wrinch
    Hi All, This is another for the record post that I would have posted to Dugan s Stalinist suppression of speech list had I been allowed. It provides an
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 17, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi All,

      This is another for the record post that I would have posted to Dugan's Stalinist suppression of speech list had I been allowed. It provides an analysis of PS' last but one post to me (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/15197?l=1) in terms of the logical fallacies it contains. Anyone debating him after a short while becomes aware that they are being manipulated by a master illusionist. I've found that the best way to break out of this fallacious circle of illusory logic is to find out how it works. So here, for anyone interested, is the over 20 fallacies I've been able to spot in this single posting (imagine how many hundreds a day he must churn out when he's on form!). I have to say, again, that I have never come across this intensity of duplicitousness in another human being before. I think Cardinal Newman's 'poisoning the well' is one of the most colourful and direct fallacies, and we could say that PS is poisoning the well of academic life by his very existence within it.

      PS: "Ted wrote:"

      TW: > These are all old, negative references that we've all seen before.

      PS: "[1]You wrote on September 24 and again on October 2: "these references are in
      German and I haven't seen them." I take it you forgot about that as well?"

      1) Red herring - PS' argument was that I had not seen the references, which is what my quote referred to. In a post subsequent to my quote he showed that these references were actually old and well known, so I have seen them.

      TW: > I don't think
      > that many people would agree with you that this is a good way to
      > 'approach any field of study'.

      PS: "[2]Depends on which people you have in mind. Lots of people believe Obama is a
      socialist, for example. [3]There is no shortage of people in the world who hold
      remarkably confused views. It is not insulting to point out that such views are
      mistaken and uninformed."

      2) Red herring - my argument referred to PS' use of the logical fallacies of 'red herrings, straw men and appeals to authority', not 'people in mind'.
      3) Poisoning the well (kind of ad hominem)- this has no relevance to the argument is supposed to suggest that I am confused.

      TW: > I've presented my understanding in some
      > detail, which is still being shot down by PS as 'anthroposophical in
      > his most recent posts, in spite of the fact that *all* my terms come
      > from standard sources

      PS: "[4] It's your understanding of the terms that is anthroposophical, Ted, not the
      terms themselves. [5]After all, your position on whether Steiner ever changed his
      mind on anything at all is "who knows." Dennis's position is that we can't know
      this since we "weren't there at time." [6)]These are classically anthroposophical
      attitudes. They make it hard for anthroposophists to make sense of history."

      4) Red herring - the terms are definitional; definitions are presented to avoid misunderstanding.
      5) Poisoning the well (kind of ad hominem) - this is not relevant to the argument and is designed to make me look incompetent in some way.
      6) Genetic fallacy - the argument is being made not about my terms but their supposed origin.

      TW: > You might also want to remember that you've claimed that I 'apparently
      > don't understand these terms'. This suggest that you think that you
      > have a better understanding than I do. Maybe you do. But we won't know
      > if you don't explain your understanding.

      PS: "[7]You're mistaken about that, Ted. When I read my students' papers, for example,
      it isn't difficult to discern which ones have a better understanding of the
      subject and which ones don't, without any of them offering definitions of
      particular terms. Providing definitions can play a central role in, say,
      mathematical proofs. They do not generally enjoy this role in history, however.
      Much of historical reasoning is contextual, not definitional. [8]In any case, the
      flaws in your argument do not stem from the various and sundry definitions you
      have come up with. [9]We can all readily accept your definitions. [10]This won't change
      Steiner's texts."

      7) Red herring - this is an example where terms are not contested. Where they are, definitions become important.
      8) Poisoning the well (kind of ad hominem) - nothing is said about any argument and instead my reasoning is alleged to be flawed.
      9) Red herring - its the content and application of my definitions that is being contested, and they very much do 'change Steiner's texts'.
      10) Fallacy of imposition - the argument is about the meaning and contents of the text; PS is trying to shift the reference to the physical existence of the text, which of course can't be changed by definitions.

      TW: > So you don't understand what atomism is - one of the key concepts in
      > this discussion for over year.

      PS: "[11]Oddly, Steiner never mentions it in any of those references you haven't seen."

      11) Red herring - I never said he did; instead I said PS mentioned it in the other, positive references.

      TW: > I think that we're waiting for you to tell us what you've
      > learnt from Peter about atomism and materialism.

      PS: "[12, 13] Because 'atomism' is the 'definition' of 'materialism,' except when it isn't."

      12) Begging the question - the definition of 'materialism' is what's at issue.
      13) Proof by assertion - Ostwald defined 'materialism' as this in 'Overcoming scientific materialism'. PS' has tried to refute this by asserting it's untrue for a year.

      TW: > without some understanding of the meaning these
      > words are just tokens in a sentence

      PS: "[14]Or definitions in a premise. Or premises in a definition. Or something."

      14) Red herring - the suggested confusion between premises and definitions is irrelevant to the truth of my statement, which is a standard one about meaning.

      PS: "I know you think I'm mocking you, Ted. In reality, I'm mocking your claims. [15]) You
      believe that you know more about these topics than the others here. I am amused
      by this belief, which is why you find my replies to you snide and sarcastic and
      so forth. [16, 17] In your own eyes, you are privy to specialized knowledge and
      understanding, a veritable Tony Stark of the [18]anthroposophical world."

      15) Red herring - what PS' asserts I may or not believe is irrelevant to the argument.
      16) Red herring - whether I believe I'm 'privy to specialised knowledge' is irrelevant the argument
      17) Ad hominem - this is a statement purely about me, and not my argument
      18) Genetic fallacy - whatever it is the previous is supposed to be asserting is now being asserted to be caused by its origin.

      PS: "[19]This is extremely common among esotericists. Dennis and Frank and Brad and all
      sorts of others say the same things all the time. [20] It's not simply that you think
      you know more about history than historians and more about physics than
      physicists. [21]It's not simply that you think you know more about texts you've
      never seen in languages you don't read. It's your personal investment in
      anthroposophy that gets in the way of discussion. [22]For you, Steiner's work isn't
      an object of study, it's a source of Timeless Truths, and the notion of viewing
      Steiner as a historical figure is an insult. That's why critique seems like
      mockery and slander and lying. Greetings,"

      19) Genetic fallacy - whatever is being asserted is supposed to derive from its source.
      20) Appeal to accomplishment (form of genetic fallacy) - my argument is supposed to be weakened by the fact that I'm not a 'physicist' or 'historian'
      21) Red herring - and repletion of 1)
      22) Red herring - this is an argument about whether there exist contradictions in Steiner's references to materialism in connection with Ostwald not my view about 'Timeless truths'.

      PS: "Peter S."

      T.

      Ted Wrinch
    • ted.wrinch
      It provides an analysis of PS last but one post to me Actually, it was his last post. T. Ted Wrinch
      Message 2 of 2 , Oct 17, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        " It provides an analysis of PS' last but one post to me "

        Actually, it was his last post.

        T.

        Ted Wrinch

        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi All,
        >
        > This is another for the record post that I would have posted to Dugan's Stalinist suppression of speech list had I been allowed. It provides an analysis of PS' last but one post to me (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/15197?l=1) in terms of the logical fallacies it contains. Anyone debating him after a short while becomes aware that they are being manipulated by a master illusionist. I've found that the best way to break out of this fallacious circle of illusory logic is to find out how it works. So here, for anyone interested, is the over 20 fallacies I've been able to spot in this single posting (imagine how many hundreds a day he must churn out when he's on form!). I have to say, again, that I have never come across this intensity of duplicitousness in another human being before. I think Cardinal Newman's 'poisoning the well' is one of the most colourful and direct fallacies, and we could say that PS is poisoning the well of academic life by his very existence within it.
        >
        > PS: "Ted wrote:"
        >
        > TW: > These are all old, negative references that we've all seen before.
        >
        > PS: "[1]You wrote on September 24 and again on October 2: "these references are in
        > German and I haven't seen them." I take it you forgot about that as well?"
        >
        > 1) Red herring - PS' argument was that I had not seen the references, which is what my quote referred to. In a post subsequent to my quote he showed that these references were actually old and well known, so I have seen them.
        >
        > TW: > I don't think
        > > that many people would agree with you that this is a good way to
        > > 'approach any field of study'.
        >
        > PS: "[2]Depends on which people you have in mind. Lots of people believe Obama is a
        > socialist, for example. [3]There is no shortage of people in the world who hold
        > remarkably confused views. It is not insulting to point out that such views are
        > mistaken and uninformed."
        >
        > 2) Red herring - my argument referred to PS' use of the logical fallacies of 'red herrings, straw men and appeals to authority', not 'people in mind'.
        > 3) Poisoning the well (kind of ad hominem)- this has no relevance to the argument is supposed to suggest that I am confused.
        >
        > TW: > I've presented my understanding in some
        > > detail, which is still being shot down by PS as 'anthroposophical in
        > > his most recent posts, in spite of the fact that *all* my terms come
        > > from standard sources
        >
        > PS: "[4] It's your understanding of the terms that is anthroposophical, Ted, not the
        > terms themselves. [5]After all, your position on whether Steiner ever changed his
        > mind on anything at all is "who knows." Dennis's position is that we can't know
        > this since we "weren't there at time." [6)]These are classically anthroposophical
        > attitudes. They make it hard for anthroposophists to make sense of history."
        >
        > 4) Red herring - the terms are definitional; definitions are presented to avoid misunderstanding.
        > 5) Poisoning the well (kind of ad hominem) - this is not relevant to the argument and is designed to make me look incompetent in some way.
        > 6) Genetic fallacy - the argument is being made not about my terms but their supposed origin.
        >
        > TW: > You might also want to remember that you've claimed that I 'apparently
        > > don't understand these terms'. This suggest that you think that you
        > > have a better understanding than I do. Maybe you do. But we won't know
        > > if you don't explain your understanding.
        >
        > PS: "[7]You're mistaken about that, Ted. When I read my students' papers, for example,
        > it isn't difficult to discern which ones have a better understanding of the
        > subject and which ones don't, without any of them offering definitions of
        > particular terms. Providing definitions can play a central role in, say,
        > mathematical proofs. They do not generally enjoy this role in history, however.
        > Much of historical reasoning is contextual, not definitional. [8]In any case, the
        > flaws in your argument do not stem from the various and sundry definitions you
        > have come up with. [9]We can all readily accept your definitions. [10]This won't change
        > Steiner's texts."
        >
        > 7) Red herring - this is an example where terms are not contested. Where they are, definitions become important.
        > 8) Poisoning the well (kind of ad hominem) - nothing is said about any argument and instead my reasoning is alleged to be flawed.
        > 9) Red herring - its the content and application of my definitions that is being contested, and they very much do 'change Steiner's texts'.
        > 10) Fallacy of imposition - the argument is about the meaning and contents of the text; PS is trying to shift the reference to the physical existence of the text, which of course can't be changed by definitions.
        >
        > TW: > So you don't understand what atomism is - one of the key concepts in
        > > this discussion for over year.
        >
        > PS: "[11]Oddly, Steiner never mentions it in any of those references you haven't seen."
        >
        > 11) Red herring - I never said he did; instead I said PS mentioned it in the other, positive references.
        >
        > TW: > I think that we're waiting for you to tell us what you've
        > > learnt from Peter about atomism and materialism.
        >
        > PS: "[12, 13] Because 'atomism' is the 'definition' of 'materialism,' except when it isn't."
        >
        > 12) Begging the question - the definition of 'materialism' is what's at issue.
        > 13) Proof by assertion - Ostwald defined 'materialism' as this in 'Overcoming scientific materialism'. PS' has tried to refute this by asserting it's untrue for a year.
        >
        > TW: > without some understanding of the meaning these
        > > words are just tokens in a sentence
        >
        > PS: "[14]Or definitions in a premise. Or premises in a definition. Or something."
        >
        > 14) Red herring - the suggested confusion between premises and definitions is irrelevant to the truth of my statement, which is a standard one about meaning.
        >
        > PS: "I know you think I'm mocking you, Ted. In reality, I'm mocking your claims. [15]) You
        > believe that you know more about these topics than the others here. I am amused
        > by this belief, which is why you find my replies to you snide and sarcastic and
        > so forth. [16, 17] In your own eyes, you are privy to specialized knowledge and
        > understanding, a veritable Tony Stark of the [18]anthroposophical world."
        >
        > 15) Red herring - what PS' asserts I may or not believe is irrelevant to the argument.
        > 16) Red herring - whether I believe I'm 'privy to specialised knowledge' is irrelevant the argument
        > 17) Ad hominem - this is a statement purely about me, and not my argument
        > 18) Genetic fallacy - whatever it is the previous is supposed to be asserting is now being asserted to be caused by its origin.
        >
        > PS: "[19]This is extremely common among esotericists. Dennis and Frank and Brad and all
        > sorts of others say the same things all the time. [20] It's not simply that you think
        > you know more about history than historians and more about physics than
        > physicists. [21]It's not simply that you think you know more about texts you've
        > never seen in languages you don't read. It's your personal investment in
        > anthroposophy that gets in the way of discussion. [22]For you, Steiner's work isn't
        > an object of study, it's a source of Timeless Truths, and the notion of viewing
        > Steiner as a historical figure is an insult. That's why critique seems like
        > mockery and slander and lying. Greetings,"
        >
        > 19) Genetic fallacy - whatever is being asserted is supposed to derive from its source.
        > 20) Appeal to accomplishment (form of genetic fallacy) - my argument is supposed to be weakened by the fact that I'm not a 'physicist' or 'historian'
        > 21) Red herring - and repletion of 1)
        > 22) Red herring - this is an argument about whether there exist contradictions in Steiner's references to materialism in connection with Ostwald not my view about 'Timeless truths'.
        >
        > PS: "Peter S."
        >
        > T.
        >
        > Ted Wrinch
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.