Discussion:
ad Hitlerem
(too old to reply)
Arthur Neuendorffer
2018-02-28 15:24:21 UTC
Permalink
--------------------------------------------------
https://aws.scientificamerican.com/article/is-truth-an-outdated-concept/

Is Truth an Outdated Concept?
Are we living in a post-truth world?

By Michael Shermer | Scientific American March 2018 Issue

<<Despite the backfire effect, in which people double down on their core beliefs when confronted with contrary facts to reduce cognitive dissonance, an “affective tipping point” may be reached when the counterevidence is overwhelming and especially when the contrary belief becomes accepted by others in one's tribe. This process is helped along by “debiasing” programs in which people are introduced to the numerous cognitive biases that plague our species, such as the confirmation bias and the availability heuristic, and the many ways not to argue: appeals to authority, circular reasoning, ad hominem and especially ad Hitlerem. Teaching students to think critically about issues by having them discuss and debate all sides, especially articulating their own and another's position is essential, as is asking, “What would it take for you to change your mind?”>>
-----------------------------------------------------------
Standard Stratfordian techniques:

1) appeals to authority,

2) circular reasoning,

3) ad hominem and

4) ad Hitlerem
(a.k.a, Anti-Stratfordianism is equivalent to Holocaust denial)


-----------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
nordicskiv2
2018-02-28 16:55:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
https://aws.scientificamerican.com/article/is-truth-an-outdated-concept/
Is Truth an Outdated Concept?
Are we living in a post-truth world?
By Michael Shermer | Scientific American March 2018 Issue
[...]
3) ad hominem
You plainly do not understand what is meant by that term, Art. For example, if I were to say "Your facts and your reasoning are farcically wrong because you are an idiot", that would be an instance of _ad hominem_. But that's *NOT* what anti-Stratfordians say, Art -- rather, we claim the conVERse: You are an idiot because your "facts" and your "reasoning" are farcically wrong, and demonstrably so.

Of course, the deficiencies in both "facts" and "reasoning" we demonstrate quite conclusively, but by other means. For example, consider the "reasoning" of someone who claims that _тæрин_ is Russian for "youth" when (1) the word contains a letter that does *not even appear in the Russian alphabet*; (2) the words for "youth" (e.g., юность, молодость, молодежный, подросток, юноша, etc.) are VERy well known to anyone who actually knows Russian; (3) no Slavic root remotely related to the concept of youth is discernible in the word, and (4) the supposed source for this bogus claim *clearly identifies* the word as Ossetian rather than Russian -- pretty clearly, the "reasoning" capability of such a person is seVEREly deficient, if not outright nonexistent.

As another example, consider the "reasoning" of someone who claims that the eminent Yale scholar Peter Gay perished in the 9/11 attacks: (1) the victim was clearly identified as Peter A. Gay, not Peter J. Gay; (2) the victim was identified as a Raytheon industrial plant manager, not as a distinguished Yale historian; (3) the victim's age was listed as 54 years old, while the scholar Peter Gay was 78 years of age at the time of the attack; (4) the victim was identified as a resident of Tewksbury, MA. Consider, too, the "reasoning" of someone who thought it "reasonable" that, since the historian Peter J. Gay was supported by the Mellon Foundation, he must have been flying(!) from New Haven to New York City to collect his grant check *in person*(!) at the Mellon Bank in Manhattan(!) -- either the reasoning of such a person is seVEREly deficient or he has not heard of branch banks, direct deposit, or the U. S. Postal Service. MoreoVER, such a person's "reasoning" (not to mention his knowledge of rudimentary geography) is abysmally deficient if he thinks (usual disclaimer) it "reasonable" that the best way to get from New Haven to New York City would be to board a nonstop flight from Boston to Los Angeles!

Or, consider the "fact" that Virgil predated Herodotus, that Mary Wollstonecraft and Prince Albert were born on May 26, that Anne Hathaway was Shakespeare's mother, or that Aleksandr Nevskii was tsar.

Of course, the main conclusion from the irrefutable fact that your "facts" and your "reasoning" are both farcically wrong is that your conclusions are almost certainly incorrect, Art; the conclusion that you are an idiot is merely an ancillary inference.

If the difference between an assertion and its conVERse remains unclear to you, Art, get someone who suffers fools gladly to explain it to you; I concede that literacy is probably required to appreciate the distinction that I've explained to you carefully above.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
1) appeals to authority,
You plainly do not understand what this means either, Art. Since none of us was alive four hundred years ago (here I exclude from consideration some demented Marlovians who seem to believe that their hero *neVER* died), some appeal to *competent, reliable* authority is part and parcel of writing history. Where many anti-Stratfordians go wrong is in being farcically unable to gauge the reliability of their sources.

For example, an idiot who asserted that _vier_ is Spanish for "four" is obviously farcically incapable of assessing the reliability of his sources, in an instance in which it is VERy easy to do so -- for example, by: (1) consulting a native speaker of Spanish, (2) consulting the _Diccionario de la Real Academia Española_, and (3) consulting countless other independent, ideologically unaligned, mutually corroborating linguistic references.

HoweVER, if you *really* think (usual disclaimer) that the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ and the _Dictionary of National Biography_ are not sufficient authorities to establish beyond doubt that neither Mary Wollstonecraft nor Prince Albert (nor, for that matter, the Spanish Inquisition) was born on May 26, there there is something VERy seriously wrong with your head, Art!

To summarize, it is better to appeal to a *competent, reliable* authority than to an ignoramus, Art.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
2) circular reasoning,
Examples, Art?
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
and
4) ad Hitlerem
(a.k.a, Anti-Stratfordianism is equivalent to Holocaust denial)
Anti-Stratfordian historical REVisionism is not equivalent to Holocaust denial.

HoweVER, it is striking that the *same* wanton disregard for (or in most cases, abysmal ignorance of) the standards and methods of historical inquiry, the *same* inability to gauge reliability of sources, the *same* eagerness to embrace as genuine almost any bogus "fact" that reinforces their prejudices, the *same* willingness to (mis)quote texts out of context, the *same* truculent reluctance to accept as genuine evidence that does not favor their prejudices, the *same* special pleading, the *same* farcical ignorance of background factual material, the *same* desperate misinterpretation of equivocal evidence, and the *same* contempt for painstakingly acquired expertise characterize both most anti-Stratfordians and most Holocaust deniers, as well as most alien abduction proponents, most circle-squaring scientific cranks, etc.

It is also striking how many anti-Stratfordians harbor radical right-wing or even quasi-fascist political opinions, from Enoch Powell to Joseph Sobran to h.l.a.s.'s own Mr. Streitz.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
http://youtu.be/jpc5A-14tmw
You see what I mean about inability to gauge source reliability, Art? That's a talk by someone who not only lacks pertinent disciplinary expertise, but is even a self-professed crackpot!

http://tinyurl.com/y8o2xepe

Finally, I note that you have not responded to *any* of the points that I raised, Art. You have no answer to the fact that many of your supposed anagrams are not anagrams at all, nor to the fact that many of your supposed equidistant letter sequences and not equidistant letter sequences at all. Nor have you eVER explained what on earth makes you think (usual disclaimer!) that _Hamlet_ is "self referential". Rather, your followup merely consisted of a claim that "Stratfordians" engage in various informal fallacies, with *zero evidence* of such behavior. By contrast, I have shown above (and many more examples could easily be enumerated) that anti-Stratfordians routinely engage in those VERy logical fallacies!
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
-----------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer (aka Noonedafter)
Arthur Neuendorffer
2018-02-28 19:22:37 UTC
Permalink
--------------------------------------------------
https://aws.scientificamerican.com/article/is-truth-an-outdated-concept/

Is Truth an Outdated Concept?
Are we living in a post-truth world?

By Michael Shermer | Scientific American March 2018 Issue

<<Despite the backfire effect, in which people double down on their core beliefs when confronted with contrary facts to reduce cognitive dissonance, an “affective tipping point” may be reached when the counterevidence is overwhelming and especially when the contrary belief becomes accepted by others in one's tribe. This process is helped along by “debiasing” programs in which people are introduced to the numerous cognitive biases that plague our species, such as the confirmation bias and the availability heuristic, and the many ways not to argue: appeals to authority, circular reasoning, ad hominem and especially ad Hitlerem. Teaching students to think critically about issues by having them discuss and debate all sides, especially articulating their own and another's position is essential, as is asking, “What would it take for you to change your mind?”>>
-----------------------------------------------------------
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
3) ad hominem
Lea wrote:

<<You plainly do not understand what is meant by that term, Art. For example, if I were to say "Your facts and your reasoning are farcically wrong because you are an idiot", that would be an instance of _ad hominem_. But that's *NOT* what anti-Stratfordians say, Art -- rather, we claim the conVERse: You are an idiot because your "facts" and your "reasoning" are farcically wrong, and demonstrably so.>>

You're an "anti-Stratfordians"?????

Lea wrote:

<<Of course, the main conclusion from the irrefutable fact that your "facts" and your "reasoning" are both farcically wrong is that your conclusions are almost certainly incorrect, Art; the conclusion that you are an idiot is merely an ancillary inference.>>
---------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

<<Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized as an informal fallacy, more precisely as a eugenic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.>>
---------------------------------------
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
1) appeals to authority,
Lea wrote:

<<You plainly do not understand what this means either, Art. Since none of us was alive four hundred years ago, some appeal to *competent, reliable* authority is part and parcel of writing history. Where many anti-Stratfordians go wrong is in being farcically unable to gauge the reliability of their sources. HoweVER, if you *really* think (usual disclaimer) that the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ and the _Dictionary of National Biography_ are not sufficient authorities... there is something VERy seriously wrong with your head, Art! To summarize, it is better to appeal to a *competent, reliable* authority than to an ignoramus, Art.>>
.........................................................
I believe in *competent, reliable* Arthurity.
-----------------------------------------
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
2) circular reasoning,
Lea wrote: <<Examples, Art?>>
.........................................................
Shakspere wrote Shakespeare because his name is on the works.

Shakspere must have attended the King Edward VI School since he was so well educated.
-----------------------------------------
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
4) and ad Hitlerem
(a.k.a, Anti-Stratfordianism is equivalent to Holocaust denial)
Lea wrote:

<<Anti-Stratfordian historical REVisionism is not equivalent to Holocaust denial.

HoweVER, it is striking that the *same* wanton disregard for (or in most cases, abysmal ignorance of) the standards and methods of historical inquiry, the *same* inability to gauge reliability of sources, the *same* eagerness to embrace as genuine almost any bogus "fact" that reinforces their prejudices, the *same* willingness to (mis)quote texts out of context, the *same* truculent reluctance to accept as genuine evidence that does not favor their prejudices, the *same* special pleading, the *same* farcical ignorance of background factual material, the *same* desperate misinterpretation of equivocal evidence, and the *same* contempt for painstakingly acquired expertise characterize both most anti-Stratfordians and most Holocaust deniers, as well as most alien abduction proponents, most circle-squaring scientific cranks, etc.

It is also striking how many anti-Stratfordians harbor radical right-wing or even quasi-fascist political opinions, from Enoch Powell to Joseph Sobran to h.l.a.s.'s own Mr. Streitz.>>
.........................................................
Stratfordians also engage in aDUCKtive reasoning:
-------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test wrote:

<The duck test is a form of abDUCtive reasoning. The test implies that a person can identify an unknown subject by observing that subject's habitual characteristics. It is sometimes used to counter abstruse, or even valid, arguments that something is not what it appears to be. Indiana poet James Whitcomb Riley (1849–1916) may have coined the phrase when he wrote: When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.>>
-------------------------------------------
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
http://youtu.be/jpc5A-14tmw
Lea wrote:

<<You see what I mean about inability to gauge source reliability, Art? That's a talk by someone who not only lacks pertinent disciplinary expertise, but is even a self-professed crackpot!>>
.........................................................
<<Keir Cutler has a Ph.D. in theatre from Wayne State University in Detroit, a playwriting diploma from the National Theatre School of Canada and has a B.A from McGill University.>>

Like all us 6'5" geniuses, Keir is always proud to
be called a "crackpot" by arrogant Stratfordians.

Loading Image...
-----------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
nordicskiv2
2018-03-01 01:16:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
https://aws.scientificamerican.com/article/is-truth-an-outdated-concept/
Is Truth an Outdated Concept?
Are we living in a post-truth world?
By Michael Shermer | Scientific American March 2018 Issue
[...]
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
3) ad hominem
<<You plainly do not understand what is meant by that term, Art. For
example, if I were to say "Your facts and your reasoning are farcically
wrong because you are an idiot", that would be an instance of
_ad hominem_. But that's *NOT* what anti-Stratfordians say, Art -- rather,
we claim the conVERse: You are an idiot because your "facts" and your
"reasoning" are farcically wrong, and demonstrably so.>>
You're an [sic]
Is English your native tongue, Art?
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
"anti-Stratfordians"?????
My error, Art -- I meant to write "...that's *NOT* what 'Stratfordians' say about anti-Stratfordians, Art -- rather, we claim the conVERse: You are an idiot because your 'facts' and your 'reasoning' are farcically wrong, and demonstrably so."

And we proceed to *demonstrate conclusively* that your 'facts' and your 'reasoning' are farcically wrong by means that have *nothing whateVER* to do with your personal attributes, so these are *not* _ad hominem_ arguments.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
<<Of course, the main conclusion from the irrefutable fact that your
"facts" and your "reasoning" are both farcically wrong is that your
conclusions are almost certainly incorrect, Art; the conclusion that
you are an idiot is merely an ancillary inference.>>
---------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
<<Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for
argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby
an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other
attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with
the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized as an informal fallacy, more
precisely as a eugenic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.>>
That's *exactly* what I said above, Art! We don't claim that your facts and your reasoning are farcically wrong because you're an idiot, which would be an instance of _ad hominem_ -- rather, we claim -- and we *prove* -- that your "facts" and your "reasoning" are farcically wrong by *other means* and thereby rebut your "arguments"; the conclusion that you are an idiot is merely an incidental inference which plays no role in the main argument.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
1) appeals to authority,
<<You plainly do not understand what this means either, Art. Since none
of us was alive four hundred years ago, some appeal to *competent, reliable*
authority is part and parcel of writing history. Where many
anti-Stratfordians go wrong is in being farcically unable to gauge the
reliability of their sources. HoweVER, if you *really* think (usual
disclaimer) that the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ and the _Dictionary of
National Biography_ are not sufficient authorities... there is something
VERy seriously wrong with your head, Art! To summarize, it is better to
appeal to a *competent, reliable* authority than to an ignoramus, Art.>>
I believe in *competent, reliable* Arthurity.
But I just *demonstrated conclusively* that "Arthurity" is neither competent *nor* reliable, Art! How could anyone competent or reliable declare that Virgil predated Herodotus?! That _vier_ is Spanish for "four"?! That _тæрин_ is Russian for "youth"?! That Coleridge wrote Wordsworth's poem "The idiot boy"?! Yet h.l.a.s.'s own esteemed Idiot Boy has made these ridiculous claims, among many others. How could anyone competent or reliable think it "reasonable" that a man traveling from New Haven to New York City would do so by boarding a nonstop flight from Boston to Los Angeles?!
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
2) circular reasoning,
Lea wrote: <<Examples, Art?>>
.........................................................
Shakspere wrote Shakespeare because his name is on the works.
You have farcically misunderstood the nature of historians' inferences, Art! There are multiple robust, independent, ideologically unaligned, mutually corroborating pieces of evidence that all lead to that conclusion: the activity of Shakespeare as an actor and shareholder in the company that performed his dramatic works, multiple mentions (both public and private) of Shakespeare as a writer by his contemporaries, and many other pieces of evidence, all of which have been pointed out to you before, and many of which can be found at

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/,

all point to the same conclusion. For matters to be otherwise would require a gigantic conspiracy whose contours would dwarf the "lunar landing hoax" conspiracy theory so beloved by "Dr." Faker and a few other demented anti-Stratfordians and other cranks.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Shakspere must have attended the King Edward VI School since he was so well educated.
You have farcically misunderstood the nature of historians' inferences, Art! First, they *do not* claim that Shakespeare was particularly well educated; rather, they note that the works display an educational level (and a modest knowledge of Latin) typical of grammar school students at the time, but well short of that of a uniVERsity education. HoweVER, given that his modest education was acquired *somewhere*, they infer (since his father's social position would have entitled Shakespeare to it) that he *probably* attended the local grammar school.

HoweVER, I suppose that to someone who considers it "reasonable" that a man bound from New Haven to New York City would board a nonstop flight from Boston to Los Angeles, such reasonable inferences such as those of scholars concerning Shakespeare's education are simply incomprehensible.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
4) and ad Hitlerem
(a.k.a, Anti-Stratfordianism is equivalent to Holocaust denial)
<<Anti-Stratfordian historical REVisionism is not equivalent to Holocaust denial.
HoweVER, it is striking that the *same* wanton disregard for (or in most
cases, abysmal ignorance of) the standards and methods of historical
inquiry, the *same* inability to gauge reliability of sources, the *same*
eagerness to embrace as genuine almost any bogus "fact" that reinforces
their prejudices, the *same* willingness to (mis)quote texts out of
context, the *same* truculent reluctance to accept as genuine evidence
that does not favor their prejudices, the *same* special pleading, the
*same* farcical ignorance of background factual material, the *same*
desperate misinterpretation of equivocal evidence, and the *same*
contempt for painstakingly acquired expertise characterize both most
anti-Stratfordians and most Holocaust deniers, as well as most alien
abduction proponents, most circle-squaring scientific cranks, etc.
It is also striking how many anti-Stratfordians harbor radical right-wing
or even quasi-fascist political opinions, from Enoch Powell to Joseph Sobran
to h.l.a.s.'s own Mr. Streitz.>>
.........................................................
-------------------------------------------
<The duck test is a form of abDUCtive reasoning. The test implies that a
person can identify an unknown subject by observing that subject's
habitual characteristics. It is sometimes used to counter abstruse, or
even valid, arguments that something is not what it appears to be.
Indiana poet James Whitcomb Riley (1849–1916) may have coined the phrase
when he wrote: When I see a bird that walks like a duck
But ducks *don't* walk in a uniform manner, Art! For example, the feet of diving ducks are set far back on the body to facilitate diving, so their walk is much more awkward and upright that that of dabbling duck species. MoreoVER, there are other non-duck species (e.g., some grebes) walk in much the same way as diving ducks.

You obviously know nothing whateVER about what you're talking about, Art -- as usual.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
and swims like a
duck
Many avian species that swim like ducks are *not* ducks, Art. For that matter, the style of swimming of dabbling ducks (like Mallards, Northern Pintails, American Wigeons, Northern Shovelers, Wood Ducks, the seVERal teal species, American Ducks, Gadwalls, etc.) differs considerably from the way that diving ducks (e.g., the three Merganser species, the two Goldeneye species, Bufflehead, the three Scoter species, the two Scaup species, Ring-necked Duck, Ruddy Duck, Canvasback, etc.) swim.

You obviously know nothing whateVER about what you're talking about, Art -- as usual.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
and quacks like a duck,
Some birds other than ducks making quacking vocalizations, and certainly not all ducks quack, Art. For example, Fulvous Whistling Duck, Black-bellied Whistling Duck, Black Scoter, and seVERal others have a vocalization that is uniVERsally described as a whistle, not as a quack. Male Canvasbacks make a hooting sound. Male Redheads make a sound like a cat's meow. In fact, duck vocalizations (depending upon species, sex, time of year, etc.) are variously described as grunts, groans, whistles, hoots, hisses, squeaks, croaks, purrs, barks, coos, sighs, gargles, peeps, etc.

You manifestly know *nothing whateVER* about what you're talking about, Art -- as usual.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
I call that bird a duck.>>
No, Art; "Stratfordians" (by which I presume you mean people who actually know that they're talking about) *don't* generally employ what you call "abducktive reasoning". Rather, their reasoning is based upon the accepted norms and standards of professional historians and other scholars.

In fact, what you denominate "abducktive reasoning" is more like what is practiced by some of the most incompetent anti-Stratfordians: for example, there are a few anti-Stratfordian morons (well, at least one, at any rate) who cannot even recognize a valid anagram -- such morons apparently figure that if two character strings share some of the same letters, then those two strings must be anagrams of one another!
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
http://youtu.be/jpc5A-14tmw
<<You see what I mean about inability to gauge source reliability, Art?
That's a talk by someone who not only lacks pertinent disciplinary
expertise, but is even a self-professed crackpot!>>
.........................................................
<<Keir Cutler has a Ph.D. in theatre
...but not in Elizabethan literary history, or any pertinent discipline, Art -- exactly as I said.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
from Wayne State University in Detroit, a playwriting diploma
Nobody doubts his skill at crafting *fiction*, Art.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
from the
National Theatre School of Canada and has a B.A from McGill University.>>
That must look impressive indeed to someone who covets a B.A. from Lehigh, Art.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Like all us 6'5" geniuses, Keir is always proud to
be called a "crackpot" by arrogant Stratfordians.
He is a *self-professed* crackpot, Art:

https://www.amazon.com/Shakespeare-Authorship-Question-Crackpots-View-ebook/dp/B00BV7DVVG

Are you suggesting that you are a self-professed crackpot as well, Art?! If so, it is a gracious, but unnecessary, admission: indeed, anyone who has read even a few of your posts realized at once that you were a crackpot, Art.

[...]
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
-----------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer (aka Noonedafter)
John W Kennedy
2018-03-01 19:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by nordicskiv2
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
https://aws.scientificamerican.com/article/is-truth-an-outdated-concept/
Is Truth an Outdated Concept?
Are we living in a post-truth world?
By Michael Shermer | Scientific American March 2018 Issue
[...]
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
3) ad hominem
<<You plainly do not understand what is meant by that term, Art. For
example, if I were to say "Your facts and your reasoning are farcically
wrong because you are an idiot", that would be an instance of
_ad hominem_. But that's *NOT* what anti-Stratfordians say, Art -- rather,
we claim the conVERse: You are an idiot because your "facts" and your
"reasoning" are farcically wrong, and demonstrably so.>>
You're an [sic]
Is English your native tongue, Art?
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
"anti-Stratfordians"?????
My error, Art -- I meant to write "...that's *NOT* what 'Stratfordians' say about anti-Stratfordians, Art -- rather, we claim the conVERse: You are an idiot because your 'facts' and your 'reasoning' are farcically wrong, and demonstrably so."
And we proceed to *demonstrate conclusively* that your 'facts' and your 'reasoning' are farcically wrong by means that have *nothing whateVER* to do with your personal attributes, so these are *not* _ad hominem_ arguments.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
<<Of course, the main conclusion from the irrefutable fact that your
"facts" and your "reasoning" are both farcically wrong is that your
conclusions are almost certainly incorrect, Art; the conclusion that
you are an idiot is merely an ancillary inference.>>
---------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
<<Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for
argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby
an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other
attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with
the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized as an informal fallacy, more
precisely as a eugenic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.>>
That's *exactly* what I said above, Art! We don't claim that your facts and your reasoning are farcically wrong because you're an idiot, which would be an instance of _ad hominem_ -- rather, we claim -- and we *prove* -- that your "facts" and your "reasoning" are farcically wrong by *other means* and thereby rebut your "arguments"; the conclusion that you are an idiot is merely an incidental inference which plays no role in the main argument.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
1) appeals to authority,
<<You plainly do not understand what this means either, Art. Since none
of us was alive four hundred years ago, some appeal to *competent, reliable*
authority is part and parcel of writing history. Where many
anti-Stratfordians go wrong is in being farcically unable to gauge the
reliability of their sources. HoweVER, if you *really* think (usual
disclaimer) that the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ and the _Dictionary of
National Biography_ are not sufficient authorities... there is something
VERy seriously wrong with your head, Art! To summarize, it is better to
appeal to a *competent, reliable* authority than to an ignoramus, Art.>>
I believe in *competent, reliable* Arthurity.
But I just *demonstrated conclusively* that "Arthurity" is neither competent *nor* reliable, Art! How could anyone competent or reliable declare that Virgil predated Herodotus?! That _vier_ is Spanish for "four"?! That _тæрин_ is Russian for "youth"?! That Coleridge wrote Wordsworth's poem "The idiot boy"?! Yet h.l.a.s.'s own esteemed Idiot Boy has made these ridiculous claims, among many others. How could anyone competent or reliable think it "reasonable" that a man traveling from New Haven to New York City would do so by boarding a nonstop flight from Boston to Los Angeles?!
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
2) circular reasoning,
Lea wrote: <<Examples, Art?>>
.........................................................
Shakspere wrote Shakespeare because his name is on the works.
You have farcically misunderstood the nature of historians' inferences, Art! There are multiple robust, independent, ideologically unaligned, mutually corroborating pieces of evidence that all lead to that conclusion: the activity of Shakespeare as an actor and shareholder in the company that performed his dramatic works, multiple mentions (both public and private) of Shakespeare as a writer by his contemporaries, and many other pieces of evidence, all of which have been pointed out to you before, and many of which can be found at
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/,
all point to the same conclusion. For matters to be otherwise would require a gigantic conspiracy whose contours would dwarf the "lunar landing hoax" conspiracy theory so beloved by "Dr." Faker and a few other demented anti-Stratfordians and other cranks.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Shakspere must have attended the King Edward VI School since he was so well educated.
You have farcically misunderstood the nature of historians' inferences, Art! First, they *do not* claim that Shakespeare was particularly well educated; rather, they note that the works display an educational level (and a modest knowledge of Latin) typical of grammar school students at the time, but well short of that of a uniVERsity education. HoweVER, given that his modest education was acquired *somewhere*, they infer (since his father's social position would have entitled Shakespeare to it) that he *probably* attended the local grammar school.
HoweVER, I suppose that to someone who considers it "reasonable" that a man bound from New Haven to New York City would board a nonstop flight from Boston to Los Angeles, such reasonable inferences such as those of scholars concerning Shakespeare's education are simply incomprehensible.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
4) and ad Hitlerem
(a.k.a, Anti-Stratfordianism is equivalent to Holocaust denial)
<<Anti-Stratfordian historical REVisionism is not equivalent to Holocaust denial.
HoweVER, it is striking that the *same* wanton disregard for (or in most
cases, abysmal ignorance of) the standards and methods of historical
inquiry, the *same* inability to gauge reliability of sources, the *same*
eagerness to embrace as genuine almost any bogus "fact" that reinforces
their prejudices, the *same* willingness to (mis)quote texts out of
context, the *same* truculent reluctance to accept as genuine evidence
that does not favor their prejudices, the *same* special pleading, the
*same* farcical ignorance of background factual material, the *same*
desperate misinterpretation of equivocal evidence, and the *same*
contempt for painstakingly acquired expertise characterize both most
anti-Stratfordians and most Holocaust deniers, as well as most alien
abduction proponents, most circle-squaring scientific cranks, etc.
It is also striking how many anti-Stratfordians harbor radical right-wing
or even quasi-fascist political opinions, from Enoch Powell to Joseph Sobran
to h.l.a.s.'s own Mr. Streitz.>>
.........................................................
-------------------------------------------
<The duck test is a form of abDUCtive reasoning. The test implies that a
person can identify an unknown subject by observing that subject's
habitual characteristics. It is sometimes used to counter abstruse, or
even valid, arguments that something is not what it appears to be.
Indiana poet James Whitcomb Riley (1849–1916) may have coined the phrase
when he wrote: When I see a bird that walks like a duck
But ducks *don't* walk in a uniform manner, Art! For example, the feet of diving ducks are set far back on the body to facilitate diving, so their walk is much more awkward and upright that that of dabbling duck species. MoreoVER, there are other non-duck species (e.g., some grebes) walk in much the same way as diving ducks.
You obviously know nothing whateVER about what you're talking about, Art -- as usual.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
and swims like a
duck
Many avian species that swim like ducks are *not* ducks, Art. For that matter, the style of swimming of dabbling ducks (like Mallards, Northern Pintails, American Wigeons, Northern Shovelers, Wood Ducks, the seVERal teal species, American Ducks, Gadwalls, etc.) differs considerably from the way that diving ducks (e.g., the three Merganser species, the two Goldeneye species, Bufflehead, the three Scoter species, the two Scaup species, Ring-necked Duck, Ruddy Duck, Canvasback, etc.) swim.
You obviously know nothing whateVER about what you're talking about, Art -- as usual.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
and quacks like a duck,
Some birds other than ducks making quacking vocalizations, and certainly not all ducks quack, Art. For example, Fulvous Whistling Duck, Black-bellied Whistling Duck, Black Scoter, and seVERal others have a vocalization that is uniVERsally described as a whistle, not as a quack. Male Canvasbacks make a hooting sound. Male Redheads make a sound like a cat's meow. In fact, duck vocalizations (depending upon species, sex, time of year, etc.) are variously described as grunts, groans, whistles, hoots, hisses, squeaks, croaks, purrs, barks, coos, sighs, gargles, peeps, etc.
You manifestly know *nothing whateVER* about what you're talking about, Art -- as usual.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
I call that bird a duck.>>
No, Art; "Stratfordians" (by which I presume you mean people who actually know that they're talking about) *don't* generally employ what you call "abducktive reasoning". Rather, their reasoning is based upon the accepted norms and standards of professional historians and other scholars.
In fact, what you denominate "abducktive reasoning" is more like what is practiced by some of the most incompetent anti-Stratfordians: for example, there are a few anti-Stratfordian morons (well, at least one, at any rate) who cannot even recognize a valid anagram -- such morons apparently figure that if two character strings share some of the same letters, then those two strings must be anagrams of one another!
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
http://youtu.be/jpc5A-14tmw
<<You see what I mean about inability to gauge source reliability, Art?
That's a talk by someone who not only lacks pertinent disciplinary
expertise, but is even a self-professed crackpot!>>
.........................................................
<<Keir Cutler has a Ph.D. in theatre
...but not in Elizabethan literary history, or any pertinent discipline, Art -- exactly as I said.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
from Wayne State University in Detroit, a playwriting diploma
Nobody doubts his skill at crafting *fiction*, Art.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
from the
National Theatre School of Canada and has a B.A from McGill University.>>
That must look impressive indeed to someone who covets a B.A. from Lehigh, Art.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Like all us 6'5" geniuses, Keir is always proud to
be called a "crackpot" by arrogant Stratfordians.
https://www.amazon.com/Shakespeare-Authorship-Question-Crackpots-View-ebook/dp/B00BV7DVVG
Are you suggesting that you are a self-professed crackpot as well, Art?! If so, it is a gracious, but unnecessary, admission: indeed, anyone who has read even a few of your posts realized at once that you were a crackpot, Art.
[...]
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
-----------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer (aka Noonedafter)
Common present-day neo-Latin practice is Adolphum Hitler, with the
surname indeclinable; older practice would be Adolphum Hitlerum, with
the surname in 2nd declension as Hitler, Hitleri.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
John W Kennedy
2018-03-01 19:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by nordicskiv2
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
https://aws.scientificamerican.com/article/is-truth-an-outdated-concept/
Is Truth an Outdated Concept?
Are we living in a post-truth world?
By Michael Shermer | Scientific American March 2018 Issue
[...]
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
3) ad hominem
<<You plainly do not understand what is meant by that term, Art. For
example, if I were to say "Your facts and your reasoning are farcically
wrong because you are an idiot", that would be an instance of
_ad hominem_. But that's *NOT* what anti-Stratfordians say, Art -- rather,
we claim the conVERse: You are an idiot because your "facts" and your
"reasoning" are farcically wrong, and demonstrably so.>>
You're an [sic]
Is English your native tongue, Art?
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
"anti-Stratfordians"?????
My error, Art -- I meant to write "...that's *NOT* what 'Stratfordians' say about anti-Stratfordians, Art -- rather, we claim the conVERse: You are an idiot because your 'facts' and your 'reasoning' are farcically wrong, and demonstrably so."
And we proceed to *demonstrate conclusively* that your 'facts' and your 'reasoning' are farcically wrong by means that have *nothing whateVER* to do with your personal attributes, so these are *not* _ad hominem_ arguments.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
<<Of course, the main conclusion from the irrefutable fact that your
"facts" and your "reasoning" are both farcically wrong is that your
conclusions are almost certainly incorrect, Art; the conclusion that
you are an idiot is merely an ancillary inference.>>
---------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
<<Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for
argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby
an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other
attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with
the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized as an informal fallacy, more
precisely as a eugenic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.>>
That's *exactly* what I said above, Art! We don't claim that your facts and your reasoning are farcically wrong because you're an idiot, which would be an instance of _ad hominem_ -- rather, we claim -- and we *prove* -- that your "facts" and your "reasoning" are farcically wrong by *other means* and thereby rebut your "arguments"; the conclusion that you are an idiot is merely an incidental inference which plays no role in the main argument.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
1) appeals to authority,
<<You plainly do not understand what this means either, Art. Since none
of us was alive four hundred years ago, some appeal to *competent, reliable*
authority is part and parcel of writing history. Where many
anti-Stratfordians go wrong is in being farcically unable to gauge the
reliability of their sources. HoweVER, if you *really* think (usual
disclaimer) that the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ and the _Dictionary of
National Biography_ are not sufficient authorities... there is something
VERy seriously wrong with your head, Art! To summarize, it is better to
appeal to a *competent, reliable* authority than to an ignoramus, Art.>>
I believe in *competent, reliable* Arthurity.
But I just *demonstrated conclusively* that "Arthurity" is neither competent *nor* reliable, Art! How could anyone competent or reliable declare that Virgil predated Herodotus?! That _vier_ is Spanish for "four"?! That _тæрин_ is Russian for "youth"?! That Coleridge wrote Wordsworth's poem "The idiot boy"?! Yet h.l.a.s.'s own esteemed Idiot Boy has made these ridiculous claims, among many others. How could anyone competent or reliable think it "reasonable" that a man traveling from New Haven to New York City would do so by boarding a nonstop flight from Boston to Los Angeles?!
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
2) circular reasoning,
Lea wrote: <<Examples, Art?>>
.........................................................
Shakspere wrote Shakespeare because his name is on the works.
You have farcically misunderstood the nature of historians' inferences, Art! There are multiple robust, independent, ideologically unaligned, mutually corroborating pieces of evidence that all lead to that conclusion: the activity of Shakespeare as an actor and shareholder in the company that performed his dramatic works, multiple mentions (both public and private) of Shakespeare as a writer by his contemporaries, and many other pieces of evidence, all of which have been pointed out to you before, and many of which can be found at
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/,
all point to the same conclusion. For matters to be otherwise would require a gigantic conspiracy whose contours would dwarf the "lunar landing hoax" conspiracy theory so beloved by "Dr." Faker and a few other demented anti-Stratfordians and other cranks.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Shakspere must have attended the King Edward VI School since he was so well educated.
You have farcically misunderstood the nature of historians' inferences, Art! First, they *do not* claim that Shakespeare was particularly well educated; rather, they note that the works display an educational level (and a modest knowledge of Latin) typical of grammar school students at the time, but well short of that of a uniVERsity education. HoweVER, given that his modest education was acquired *somewhere*, they infer (since his father's social position would have entitled Shakespeare to it) that he *probably* attended the local grammar school.
HoweVER, I suppose that to someone who considers it "reasonable" that a man bound from New Haven to New York City would board a nonstop flight from Boston to Los Angeles, such reasonable inferences such as those of scholars concerning Shakespeare's education are simply incomprehensible.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
4) and ad Hitlerem
(a.k.a, Anti-Stratfordianism is equivalent to Holocaust denial)
<<Anti-Stratfordian historical REVisionism is not equivalent to Holocaust denial.
HoweVER, it is striking that the *same* wanton disregard for (or in most
cases, abysmal ignorance of) the standards and methods of historical
inquiry, the *same* inability to gauge reliability of sources, the *same*
eagerness to embrace as genuine almost any bogus "fact" that reinforces
their prejudices, the *same* willingness to (mis)quote texts out of
context, the *same* truculent reluctance to accept as genuine evidence
that does not favor their prejudices, the *same* special pleading, the
*same* farcical ignorance of background factual material, the *same*
desperate misinterpretation of equivocal evidence, and the *same*
contempt for painstakingly acquired expertise characterize both most
anti-Stratfordians and most Holocaust deniers, as well as most alien
abduction proponents, most circle-squaring scientific cranks, etc.
It is also striking how many anti-Stratfordians harbor radical right-wing
or even quasi-fascist political opinions, from Enoch Powell to Joseph Sobran
to h.l.a.s.'s own Mr. Streitz.>>
.........................................................
-------------------------------------------
<The duck test is a form of abDUCtive reasoning. The test implies that a
person can identify an unknown subject by observing that subject's
habitual characteristics. It is sometimes used to counter abstruse, or
even valid, arguments that something is not what it appears to be.
Indiana poet James Whitcomb Riley (1849–1916) may have coined the phrase
when he wrote: When I see a bird that walks like a duck
But ducks *don't* walk in a uniform manner, Art! For example, the feet of diving ducks are set far back on the body to facilitate diving, so their walk is much more awkward and upright that that of dabbling duck species. MoreoVER, there are other non-duck species (e.g., some grebes) walk in much the same way as diving ducks.
You obviously know nothing whateVER about what you're talking about, Art -- as usual.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
and swims like a
duck
Many avian species that swim like ducks are *not* ducks, Art. For that matter, the style of swimming of dabbling ducks (like Mallards, Northern Pintails, American Wigeons, Northern Shovelers, Wood Ducks, the seVERal teal species, American Ducks, Gadwalls, etc.) differs considerably from the way that diving ducks (e.g., the three Merganser species, the two Goldeneye species, Bufflehead, the three Scoter species, the two Scaup species, Ring-necked Duck, Ruddy Duck, Canvasback, etc.) swim.
You obviously know nothing whateVER about what you're talking about, Art -- as usual.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
and quacks like a duck,
Some birds other than ducks making quacking vocalizations, and certainly not all ducks quack, Art. For example, Fulvous Whistling Duck, Black-bellied Whistling Duck, Black Scoter, and seVERal others have a vocalization that is uniVERsally described as a whistle, not as a quack. Male Canvasbacks make a hooting sound. Male Redheads make a sound like a cat's meow. In fact, duck vocalizations (depending upon species, sex, time of year, etc.) are variously described as grunts, groans, whistles, hoots, hisses, squeaks, croaks, purrs, barks, coos, sighs, gargles, peeps, etc.
You manifestly know *nothing whateVER* about what you're talking about, Art -- as usual.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
I call that bird a duck.>>
No, Art; "Stratfordians" (by which I presume you mean people who actually know that they're talking about) *don't* generally employ what you call "abducktive reasoning". Rather, their reasoning is based upon the accepted norms and standards of professional historians and other scholars.
In fact, what you denominate "abducktive reasoning" is more like what is practiced by some of the most incompetent anti-Stratfordians: for example, there are a few anti-Stratfordian morons (well, at least one, at any rate) who cannot even recognize a valid anagram -- such morons apparently figure that if two character strings share some of the same letters, then those two strings must be anagrams of one another!
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
http://youtu.be/jpc5A-14tmw
<<You see what I mean about inability to gauge source reliability, Art?
That's a talk by someone who not only lacks pertinent disciplinary
expertise, but is even a self-professed crackpot!>>
.........................................................
<<Keir Cutler has a Ph.D. in theatre
...but not in Elizabethan literary history, or any pertinent discipline, Art -- exactly as I said.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
from Wayne State University in Detroit, a playwriting diploma
Nobody doubts his skill at crafting *fiction*, Art.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
from the
National Theatre School of Canada and has a B.A from McGill University.>>
That must look impressive indeed to someone who covets a B.A. from Lehigh, Art.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Like all us 6'5" geniuses, Keir is always proud to
be called a "crackpot" by arrogant Stratfordians.
https://www.amazon.com/Shakespeare-Authorship-Question-Crackpots-View-ebook/dp/B00BV7DVVG
Are you suggesting that you are a self-professed crackpot as well, Art?! If so, it is a gracious, but unnecessary, admission: indeed, anyone who has read even a few of your posts realized at once that you were a crackpot, Art.
[...]
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
-----------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer (aka Noonedafter)
Common present-day neo-Latin practice is Adolphum Hitler, with the
surname indeclinable; older practice would be Adolphum Hitlerum, with
the surname in 2nd declension as Hitler, Hitleri.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
John W Kennedy
2018-03-01 19:42:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by nordicskiv2
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
https://aws.scientificamerican.com/article/is-truth-an-outdated-concept/
Is Truth an Outdated Concept?
Are we living in a post-truth world?
By Michael Shermer | Scientific American March 2018 Issue
[...]
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
3) ad hominem
<<You plainly do not understand what is meant by that term, Art. For
example, if I were to say "Your facts and your reasoning are farcically
wrong because you are an idiot", that would be an instance of
_ad hominem_. But that's *NOT* what anti-Stratfordians say, Art -- rather,
we claim the conVERse: You are an idiot because your "facts" and your
"reasoning" are farcically wrong, and demonstrably so.>>
You're an [sic]
Is English your native tongue, Art?
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
"anti-Stratfordians"?????
My error, Art -- I meant to write "...that's *NOT* what 'Stratfordians' say about anti-Stratfordians, Art -- rather, we claim the conVERse: You are an idiot because your 'facts' and your 'reasoning' are farcically wrong, and demonstrably so."
And we proceed to *demonstrate conclusively* that your 'facts' and your 'reasoning' are farcically wrong by means that have *nothing whateVER* to do with your personal attributes, so these are *not* _ad hominem_ arguments.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
<<Of course, the main conclusion from the irrefutable fact that your
"facts" and your "reasoning" are both farcically wrong is that your
conclusions are almost certainly incorrect, Art; the conclusion that
you are an idiot is merely an ancillary inference.>>
---------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
<<Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for
argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby
an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other
attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with
the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized as an informal fallacy, more
precisely as a eugenic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.>>
That's *exactly* what I said above, Art! We don't claim that your facts and your reasoning are farcically wrong because you're an idiot, which would be an instance of _ad hominem_ -- rather, we claim -- and we *prove* -- that your "facts" and your "reasoning" are farcically wrong by *other means* and thereby rebut your "arguments"; the conclusion that you are an idiot is merely an incidental inference which plays no role in the main argument.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
1) appeals to authority,
<<You plainly do not understand what this means either, Art. Since none
of us was alive four hundred years ago, some appeal to *competent, reliable*
authority is part and parcel of writing history. Where many
anti-Stratfordians go wrong is in being farcically unable to gauge the
reliability of their sources. HoweVER, if you *really* think (usual
disclaimer) that the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ and the _Dictionary of
National Biography_ are not sufficient authorities... there is something
VERy seriously wrong with your head, Art! To summarize, it is better to
appeal to a *competent, reliable* authority than to an ignoramus, Art.>>
I believe in *competent, reliable* Arthurity.
But I just *demonstrated conclusively* that "Arthurity" is neither competent *nor* reliable, Art! How could anyone competent or reliable declare that Virgil predated Herodotus?! That _vier_ is Spanish for "four"?! That _тæрин_ is Russian for "youth"?! That Coleridge wrote Wordsworth's poem "The idiot boy"?! Yet h.l.a.s.'s own esteemed Idiot Boy has made these ridiculous claims, among many others. How could anyone competent or reliable think it "reasonable" that a man traveling from New Haven to New York City would do so by boarding a nonstop flight from Boston to Los Angeles?!
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
2) circular reasoning,
Lea wrote: <<Examples, Art?>>
.........................................................
Shakspere wrote Shakespeare because his name is on the works.
You have farcically misunderstood the nature of historians' inferences, Art! There are multiple robust, independent, ideologically unaligned, mutually corroborating pieces of evidence that all lead to that conclusion: the activity of Shakespeare as an actor and shareholder in the company that performed his dramatic works, multiple mentions (both public and private) of Shakespeare as a writer by his contemporaries, and many other pieces of evidence, all of which have been pointed out to you before, and many of which can be found at
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/,
all point to the same conclusion. For matters to be otherwise would require a gigantic conspiracy whose contours would dwarf the "lunar landing hoax" conspiracy theory so beloved by "Dr." Faker and a few other demented anti-Stratfordians and other cranks.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Shakspere must have attended the King Edward VI School since he was so well educated.
You have farcically misunderstood the nature of historians' inferences, Art! First, they *do not* claim that Shakespeare was particularly well educated; rather, they note that the works display an educational level (and a modest knowledge of Latin) typical of grammar school students at the time, but well short of that of a uniVERsity education. HoweVER, given that his modest education was acquired *somewhere*, they infer (since his father's social position would have entitled Shakespeare to it) that he *probably* attended the local grammar school.
HoweVER, I suppose that to someone who considers it "reasonable" that a man bound from New Haven to New York City would board a nonstop flight from Boston to Los Angeles, such reasonable inferences such as those of scholars concerning Shakespeare's education are simply incomprehensible.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
4) and ad Hitlerem
(a.k.a, Anti-Stratfordianism is equivalent to Holocaust denial)
<<Anti-Stratfordian historical REVisionism is not equivalent to Holocaust denial.
HoweVER, it is striking that the *same* wanton disregard for (or in most
cases, abysmal ignorance of) the standards and methods of historical
inquiry, the *same* inability to gauge reliability of sources, the *same*
eagerness to embrace as genuine almost any bogus "fact" that reinforces
their prejudices, the *same* willingness to (mis)quote texts out of
context, the *same* truculent reluctance to accept as genuine evidence
that does not favor their prejudices, the *same* special pleading, the
*same* farcical ignorance of background factual material, the *same*
desperate misinterpretation of equivocal evidence, and the *same*
contempt for painstakingly acquired expertise characterize both most
anti-Stratfordians and most Holocaust deniers, as well as most alien
abduction proponents, most circle-squaring scientific cranks, etc.
It is also striking how many anti-Stratfordians harbor radical right-wing
or even quasi-fascist political opinions, from Enoch Powell to Joseph Sobran
to h.l.a.s.'s own Mr. Streitz.>>
.........................................................
-------------------------------------------
<The duck test is a form of abDUCtive reasoning. The test implies that a
person can identify an unknown subject by observing that subject's
habitual characteristics. It is sometimes used to counter abstruse, or
even valid, arguments that something is not what it appears to be.
Indiana poet James Whitcomb Riley (1849–1916) may have coined the phrase
when he wrote: When I see a bird that walks like a duck
But ducks *don't* walk in a uniform manner, Art! For example, the feet of diving ducks are set far back on the body to facilitate diving, so their walk is much more awkward and upright that that of dabbling duck species. MoreoVER, there are other non-duck species (e.g., some grebes) walk in much the same way as diving ducks.
You obviously know nothing whateVER about what you're talking about, Art -- as usual.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
and swims like a
duck
Many avian species that swim like ducks are *not* ducks, Art. For that matter, the style of swimming of dabbling ducks (like Mallards, Northern Pintails, American Wigeons, Northern Shovelers, Wood Ducks, the seVERal teal species, American Ducks, Gadwalls, etc.) differs considerably from the way that diving ducks (e.g., the three Merganser species, the two Goldeneye species, Bufflehead, the three Scoter species, the two Scaup species, Ring-necked Duck, Ruddy Duck, Canvasback, etc.) swim.
You obviously know nothing whateVER about what you're talking about, Art -- as usual.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
and quacks like a duck,
Some birds other than ducks making quacking vocalizations, and certainly not all ducks quack, Art. For example, Fulvous Whistling Duck, Black-bellied Whistling Duck, Black Scoter, and seVERal others have a vocalization that is uniVERsally described as a whistle, not as a quack. Male Canvasbacks make a hooting sound. Male Redheads make a sound like a cat's meow. In fact, duck vocalizations (depending upon species, sex, time of year, etc.) are variously described as grunts, groans, whistles, hoots, hisses, squeaks, croaks, purrs, barks, coos, sighs, gargles, peeps, etc.
You manifestly know *nothing whateVER* about what you're talking about, Art -- as usual.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
I call that bird a duck.>>
No, Art; "Stratfordians" (by which I presume you mean people who actually know that they're talking about) *don't* generally employ what you call "abducktive reasoning". Rather, their reasoning is based upon the accepted norms and standards of professional historians and other scholars.
In fact, what you denominate "abducktive reasoning" is more like what is practiced by some of the most incompetent anti-Stratfordians: for example, there are a few anti-Stratfordian morons (well, at least one, at any rate) who cannot even recognize a valid anagram -- such morons apparently figure that if two character strings share some of the same letters, then those two strings must be anagrams of one another!
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
http://youtu.be/jpc5A-14tmw
<<You see what I mean about inability to gauge source reliability, Art?
That's a talk by someone who not only lacks pertinent disciplinary
expertise, but is even a self-professed crackpot!>>
.........................................................
<<Keir Cutler has a Ph.D. in theatre
...but not in Elizabethan literary history, or any pertinent discipline, Art -- exactly as I said.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
from Wayne State University in Detroit, a playwriting diploma
Nobody doubts his skill at crafting *fiction*, Art.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
from the
National Theatre School of Canada and has a B.A from McGill University.>>
That must look impressive indeed to someone who covets a B.A. from Lehigh, Art.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
Like all us 6'5" geniuses, Keir is always proud to
be called a "crackpot" by arrogant Stratfordians.
https://www.amazon.com/Shakespeare-Authorship-Question-Crackpots-View-ebook/dp/B00BV7DVVG
Are you suggesting that you are a self-professed crackpot as well, Art?! If so, it is a gracious, but unnecessary, admission: indeed, anyone who has read even a few of your posts realized at once that you were a crackpot, Art.
[...]
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
-----------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer (aka Noonedafter)
Common present-day neo-Latin practice is Adolphum Hitler, with the
surname indeclinable; older practice would be Adolphum Hitlerum, with
the surname in 2nd declension as Hitler, Hitleri.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
Arthur Neuendorffer
2018-03-01 20:01:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
--------------------------------------------------
https://aws.scientificamerican.com/article/is-truth-an-outdated-concept/
Is Truth an Outdated Concept?
Are we living in a post-truth world?
By Michael Shermer | Scientific American March 2018 Issue
<<Despite the backfire effect, in which people double down on their core beliefs when confronted with contrary facts to reduce cognitive dissonance, an “affective tipping point” may be reached when the counterevidence is overwhelming and especially when the contrary belief becomes accepted by others in one's tribe. This process is helped along by “debiasing” programs in which people are introduced to the numerous cognitive biases that plague our species, such as the confirmation bias and the availability heuristic, and the many ways not to argue: appeals to authority, circular reasoning, ad hominem and especially ad Hitlerem. Teaching students to think critically about issues by having them discuss and debate all sides, especially articulating their own and another's position is essential, as is asking, “What would it take for you to change your mind?”>>
-----------------------------------------------------------
1) appeals to authority,
2) circular reasoning,
3) ad hominem and
4) ad Hitlerem
(a.k.a, Anti-Stratfordianism is equivalent to Holocaust denial)
http://youtu.be/jpc5A-14tmw
-----------------------------------------------------------
John W. Kennedy wrote:

<<Common present-day neo-Latin practice is Adolphum Hitler, with the
surname indeclinable; older practice would be Adolphum Hitlerum, with
the surname in 2nd declension as Hitler, Hitleri.>>
-------------------------------------------------
_______ *DROESHOUT*
_______ *HERODOTUS*
................................................
____ (1939) Encyclopedia Britannica on "Drama"
.
____ *HERODOTUS* had a lot to say
____about TRAGEDY (i.e., a goat-song) being a PATHOS
_____(i.e., the violent death of Dionysus/Osiris
_______ by *SPARAGMOS* or dismemberment):
.
<<...we have the express testimony of *HERODOTUS* that the ritual
_worship of Dionysus (the god of Drama) was the same as the ritual
___ worship of Osiris such that it involved a "sparagmos"
_ (dismemberment), mourning, search, discovery & resurrection.>>
.
____ HowEVER, *HERODOTUS* avoided directly mentioning
____Dionysus OR Osiris in this regard:
.
____ "When the Egyptians lament the god
___ whom I may not name in this connection"
_ "They lament but whom they lament I must not say" -- *HERODOTUS*
.
__ For in the manner of ancient religion, it was always necessary
____ that Dionysus or Osiris be represented by some surrogate.
.......................................................
In fact, ALL TRAGIC HEROS are simply surrogates of Dionysus/Osiris:
.
<<We find a frequent sparagmos of beings who have committed some sin:
.
____ [A]ctaeon by hounds
____ [D]irce by a bull
____ [O]rpheus by Maenads
____ [L]ycurgus by horses
____ [P]entheus by Maenads
____ [H]YPPOLYTUS by horses
.
This use of a surrogate was made easier by the fact that both
at Eleusis & in the Osiris rite the myth was conveyed by
*tableaux* (i.e., 'things shown') rather than by words.
.
___ Thus the death of Pentheus, wearing Dionysiac dress,
_ would be shown by exactly the same tableau as that of Dionysus.
.
____ THE TRUTH COULD BE SHOWN TO THE WISE
_ AND AT THE SAME TIME *VEILED FROM THE UNKNOWING*
.
____ Such facts help to explain the charge of
_"profaning the mysteries" brought against Aeschylus.>>
-------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer

Loading...