a couple of Peter Borst snips followed>by my comments... 
Look Charles, all science is based on logic and reasoning. 

>I am not certain I would go that far Peter.  The statement sounds a bit to absolute to me and certainly some things turn up contrary or opposite to what good reasoning would suggest.  Imho the rules of logic are to guide arguments but that should not bind anyone from considering things in an upside down and backward fashion.  

So when people invoke "ad hominem" they are saying that even if a person is a jerk, that doesn't invalidate what he is saying. We may stop listening to him, but he could still be correct. Or "non sequitir," as in the example above. The latter does not follow from the former.

>of course if the person is a jerk or produces results to ALWAYS conform to their own personal agenda then not going the ad hominen attack route is also an error.  

This is not some kind of linguistic mumbo jumbo, it's mostly common sense, a least among thoughtful people. We may use different writing and speaking styles, but underneath it there are the things we are talking about. Words do matter, however. You have to write clearly and plainly if you want to be understood.

>I would guess so but even if someone does not write precise English it does not mean their idea are without value.  I would also suggest enslaving yourself strictly to the rules of logic leads to a very boring style of prose that likely will never be read by anyone than yourself and your university adviser.

Gene in Central Texas 

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html