Lance Starr Defends Ad Hominem Attacks
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:42 pm
This is somewhat dated, though it was brought to my attention that Dan Peterson has referenced it on his blog:
http://www.fairblog.org/2012/07/02/its- ... relevance/
The link will take you to Bro. Starr's July posting on the "relevance" of ad hominem attack, which he insists is a legitimate form of argument under certain circumstances:
A while back, Bill "Hey, Ken Burns Called and Wants His Hair Back" Hamblin and others (including Schryver) were bending over backwards to redefine the commonplace definition of argumentum ad hominem. The two main reasons why people are discouraged from indulging in this logical fallacy are: (1) it tends to distract from the substance of the issue, and (2) it's usually impolite and/or not very nice.
Starr acknowledges the first point, but in spite of this, the rest of his post is a textbook example of whacked-out Mopologetic sophistry. Early on, he takes the opportunity to single out John Dehlin:
His statement isn't entirely accurate, though. The posters on Dehlin's Facebook thread did provide instances; Starr just happens to think that these particular attacks were "relevant" or merited:
Okay, then--there *were* examples given, but, again, Starr dismisses them as being "particularly poor examples to flaunt as proof positive of the apologist’s “ad hominem” approach." Why are they "poor examples," though? Because Starr thinks they "deserved it":
Interesting, no? Starr's justification for "ad hominem" scrutiny of Beck is built on awfully shaky grounds: "her character was 'relevant'" merely because she made claims. (Beck as an example of the apologists' argumentum ad hominem probably isn't the best, mainly because her book was a memoir and not an argument per se.)
Starr continues on to the example of Grant Palmer:
The thing is: this isn't a "trial," despite the fact that (at least some of) the Mopologists see it that way. And the mention of Palmer's work for the CES is hardly the substance of his commentary. Of course, Starr brushes this aside:
So, what, then? Palmer deserves the ad hominem treatment because he provided an opening for the Mopologists to attack him? If a Mopologist mentions in passing that he supports "traditional family values," does that represent a prime opportunity to attack him for being a "homophobic bigot," merely because he was the one who mentioned it? What's so disappointing is that all this effort is being expended to defend something which ought to be completely unnecessary. In effect, Starr is defending the apologists' desire to behave in crass and unpleasant ways.
He goes on to provide yet another example drawn from the courtroom setting:
Of course is applies to a certain extent, but again, Starr is mixing his metaphors: scholarly inquiry is not the same thing as a jury trial. No one has committed a crime. No one is facing a jail sentence.
Perhaps. More relevant, though, is the soundness of the scholars' conclusions. The problem here, as Starr makes abundantly clear (possibly by accident), is that the Mopologists really do see this as a kind of "trial": they are afraid that the judge, jury, and executioner will bring the axe down on faith--that the Church and its various claims won't hold up to scrutiny. And, as Starr realizes, this is a two-way street:
Is it worth pointing out that at least two of these authors sometimes write on topics for which they don't have the relevant "formal training"? (What is Gardner's Ph.D. in, again?) Should we dig into the circumstances leading up to Gee eventually getting his doctorate? Do we really need to know what happened with his dissertation chair in order to evaluate his scholarly arguments? According to Starr, the answer is "yes":
Well, okay. It helps to know, e.g., if there is a conflict of interest in medical (or other) kinds of research. But, as Starr says,
Uh, is that not what was happening in the case of Palmer? Starr would respond by saying, "Well, we need to know whether or not he's a legitimate 'insider.'" So his justification--his notion of "relevancy"--is so broad that it can be applied to pretty much anybody (as in his above example using Gee, Gardner, and Clark). He wraps up thusly:
So, is it relevant to point out that LDS apologists are taught from a very early age to repeat, almost chant-like, the phrase, "I know the Church is true"? Is it relevant to point out that many of them are employed by the LDS Church, and that contradicting certain LDS claims would put their paychecks in jeopardy?
The bottom line here is that this stuff doesn't need to be defended. C'mon, Bro. Starr: surely you guys can come up with more productive and more effectively faith-promoting ways to defend the Church.
http://www.fairblog.org/2012/07/02/its- ... relevance/
The link will take you to Bro. Starr's July posting on the "relevance" of ad hominem attack, which he insists is a legitimate form of argument under certain circumstances:
I suspect that a sustained search of the thousands of pages of apologetic writings, both in print and on the internet, will probably turn up some example or another of an ad hominem attack. The question is, however, is an ad hominem attack always, and for all purposes, illegitimate? Personally, I think not. It is, as the title of my post suggests, a question of relevance.
A while back, Bill "Hey, Ken Burns Called and Wants His Hair Back" Hamblin and others (including Schryver) were bending over backwards to redefine the commonplace definition of argumentum ad hominem. The two main reasons why people are discouraged from indulging in this logical fallacy are: (1) it tends to distract from the substance of the issue, and (2) it's usually impolite and/or not very nice.
Starr acknowledges the first point, but in spite of this, the rest of his post is a textbook example of whacked-out Mopologetic sophistry. Early on, he takes the opportunity to single out John Dehlin:
I found it somewhat amusing when Mr. John Dehlin, of Mormon Stories fame, posted a request on his Facebook page for examples of ad hominem attacks coming from NAMI. See http://www.Facebook.com/johndehlin. It is also quite instructive that, as of this writing, not single response of the 48+ responses that has been posted, has actually identified a single instance of an actual ad hominem attack.
His statement isn't entirely accurate, though. The posters on Dehlin's Facebook thread did provide instances; Starr just happens to think that these particular attacks were "relevant" or merited:
Lance Starr wrote:As I read some of the posts in response to Mr. Dehlin’s request, two names were often given up as examples (1) Martha Beck; and (2) Grant Palmer.
Okay, then--there *were* examples given, but, again, Starr dismisses them as being "particularly poor examples to flaunt as proof positive of the apologist’s “ad hominem” approach." Why are they "poor examples," though? Because Starr thinks they "deserved it":
Take, for example, Marth Beck [sic]. Ms. Beck is the daughter of Hugh Nibley, one of the most respected LDS scholars of the past century and the man whom many would perceive as the father of modern LDS apologetics. Without recounting the whole sordid mess, Ms. Beck wrote a book in which she made some extremely serious allegations of sexual misconduct on the part of her father towards her.
....
You see, the problem with Ms. Beck’s allegations was that they were totally unsupported by any other “evidence” which could be considered. Therefore, she made her history and character a legitimate source of inquiry by her own allegations. She wanted her readers to take her word for the veracity of what she claimed occurred, but how can we, as her reader, do so when we know nothing about her? In other words, her character was “relevant” to the very case that she was making.
Interesting, no? Starr's justification for "ad hominem" scrutiny of Beck is built on awfully shaky grounds: "her character was 'relevant'" merely because she made claims. (Beck as an example of the apologists' argumentum ad hominem probably isn't the best, mainly because her book was a memoir and not an argument per se.)
Starr continues on to the example of Grant Palmer:
As Dr. Midgley pointed out in is review at the time, both Mr. Palmer and his publisher, made much of his “insider” status. Why? Obviously, because it lent a sense of credibility and expertise to the argument that he made. If a person sets himself out as an expert in some field of endeavor, his claim to expertise is, by definition, relevant. In a legal setting, when either side calls an expert witness, the very first thing that happens before the “expert” is allowed to present any material testimony regarding the actual facts of the case, is a vetting of his alleged experience and expertise. Why? Because the expert is about to present evidence to jury which he wants them to accept. It is the jury’s job to weight that evidence and make an informed decision. The expert’s actual level of expertise is, therefore, relevant to the case being made.
The thing is: this isn't a "trial," despite the fact that (at least some of) the Mopologists see it that way. And the mention of Palmer's work for the CES is hardly the substance of his commentary. Of course, Starr brushes this aside:
I realize that some will complain that, by probing Palmer’s background (or beliefs), I offer a diversion from the issues he raises and that what I have presented is an ad hominem attack. This is nonsense. Palmer and his publisher have made his CES career an issue.
So, what, then? Palmer deserves the ad hominem treatment because he provided an opening for the Mopologists to attack him? If a Mopologist mentions in passing that he supports "traditional family values," does that represent a prime opportunity to attack him for being a "homophobic bigot," merely because he was the one who mentioned it? What's so disappointing is that all this effort is being expended to defend something which ought to be completely unnecessary. In effect, Starr is defending the apologists' desire to behave in crass and unpleasant ways.
He goes on to provide yet another example drawn from the courtroom setting:
The PBS program Frontline recently ran a program dealing with forensic evidence and its uses in criminal trials. A part of that program included an examination of forensic credentialing and the American College of Forensic Examiners International (ACFEI). It investigates whether certification can aid in a person’s ability to testify as an expert witness in court — and whether certain types of certification are acceptably rigorous for this role in the legal system. In short, it turns out that ACFEI is little more than a diploma mill (you can read the report for yourself here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... entialing/). Do you think a jury would not be interested in this fact? Would it not affect their deliberations? At the very least, doesn’t it affect the weight given to the evidence presented? Dozens, if not hundreds, of people were sent to jail (and in some cases received the death penalty) based at least in part on the testimony of the “experts” certified by this organization. It would seem that the relevancy of the education and training of the person providing the testimony should be quite clear. Moreover, how should this not apply in a scholarly context?
Of course is applies to a certain extent, but again, Starr is mixing his metaphors: scholarly inquiry is not the same thing as a jury trial. No one has committed a crime. No one is facing a jail sentence.
For example, if a critic of the Book of Abraham has no formal training in Egyptology, is that not relevant to the weight given to his conclusions? If a critic of the Book of the Mormon who criticizes the Mesoamerican aspects to the book’s claims has no formal training in Mesoamerican studies, is that not relevant?
Perhaps. More relevant, though, is the soundness of the scholars' conclusions. The problem here, as Starr makes abundantly clear (possibly by accident), is that the Mopologists really do see this as a kind of "trial": they are afraid that the judge, jury, and executioner will bring the axe down on faith--that the Church and its various claims won't hold up to scrutiny. And, as Starr realizes, this is a two-way street:
Interestingly, one of the most prevalent ad hominem attacks that I have seen come in this context, when critics dismiss the work of trained experts such as John Clark, Brant Gardner, and John Gee because “they are Mormon.” It is a classic example of the ad hominem fallacy of trying to get people to ignore the actual argument due to a perceived flaw in the person who made the argument.
Is it worth pointing out that at least two of these authors sometimes write on topics for which they don't have the relevant "formal training"? (What is Gardner's Ph.D. in, again?) Should we dig into the circumstances leading up to Gee eventually getting his doctorate? Do we really need to know what happened with his dissertation chair in order to evaluate his scholarly arguments? According to Starr, the answer is "yes":
My whole point here is that, in many instances, an examination of the person making the argument is appropriate. It gives us a basis for weighing and measuring the argument being made as well as understanding the context in which the argument is made. That is not ad hominem.
Well, okay. It helps to know, e.g., if there is a conflict of interest in medical (or other) kinds of research. But, as Starr says,
And yet (as in the case of Palmer, above) sometimes this type of analysis is vital:
…an ad hominem argument is a device intended to divert attention from the critical examination of the substance of an argument, and to discredit that argument by dragging in irrelevant considerations having to do with the character or motives of its author.
Uh, is that not what was happening in the case of Palmer? Starr would respond by saying, "Well, we need to know whether or not he's a legitimate 'insider.'" So his justification--his notion of "relevancy"--is so broad that it can be applied to pretty much anybody (as in his above example using Gee, Gardner, and Clark). He wraps up thusly:
In fine, looking at relevant aspects of the person making the argument is not a fallacy. In many aspects it is essential to making an informed judgment of the argument. It’s a matter of relevance. The fact that critics have to stoop to their own invocation of ad hominem and the style before substance fallacy argues that they are ill-equipped to confront the arguments being made.
So, is it relevant to point out that LDS apologists are taught from a very early age to repeat, almost chant-like, the phrase, "I know the Church is true"? Is it relevant to point out that many of them are employed by the LDS Church, and that contradicting certain LDS claims would put their paychecks in jeopardy?
The bottom line here is that this stuff doesn't need to be defended. C'mon, Bro. Starr: surely you guys can come up with more productive and more effectively faith-promoting ways to defend the Church.