My AmazonReview of "The Reasonable Woman," allegedly by Wendy McElroy


Recommended Posts

Some more new observations about TRW -- things that caught my attention the other day while I was drawing up new lists of parallel passages.

TRW, 143

As for the five intellectual therapy groups with which I was involved , each one consisted of about eight people who met for two hours every week over a two-month period in order to work together.

1. Again, notice how the "Fundamentals of Reasoning" is never mentioned by name. As I said previously, nowhere in TRW does Wendy name my group, "The Fundamentals of Reasoning," even though she devotes considerable space to discussing the mechanics of how I ran it.

2. Note also that Wendy doesn't mention my name again. Rather, she simply refers to the "five intellectual therapy groups" in which she participated. She is referring here to the number of my FOR classes in which she participated.

It is quite possible that Wendy actually participated in five groups over a period of six years. Although I didn't ever expand an FOR group to over eight participants, if I was a person short I would have had no objection to Wendy filling in the gap. She was bright and enthusiastic, and would have served as a stimulus to the other participants.

3. But note what Wendy does not mention, namely, that she was living with "philosopher George Smith," so she was usually around our apartment on N. Van Ness (in Hollywood) while I was teaching my classes.

If Wendy had noted that she was living with the guy who "created" the "unique intellectual therapy group" to which she devotes two chapters, and if she had mentioned the class and me by name, this could easily have raised suspicions in the minds of careful readers of TRW.

Suppose you attended five of Nathaniel Branden's "intensives" during the 1970s, and you then wrote a book in which you describe how those intensives worked. Would you mention Branden's name only once in that account? Or, after mentioning his name once and almost in passing, would you merely refer thereafter to some generic "therapy" group, while describing the mechanics of Branden's intensives in considerable detail?.

Of course not. Rather, you would write things like, "Branden did this" and "Branden did that." You would mention his name many times throughout the two chapters in which you describe how he worked.

Wendy was far more careful and sleazy in her attempt to exclude me from TRW that I had hitherto realized.

To be continued....

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

To be continued....

Ghs

After mentioning the "five intellectual groups with which I was involved," Wendy lets loose with a real corker:

TRW, 143-44

Chapter 8 presents about a dozen intellectual therapy techniques that spring from my experiences in such groups, but nothing there constitutes a direct report of what occurred in any particular session.

Oh, really? If you have not already read my posts on this subject, go here and here.

here:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Early in 2000, shortly after I moved to Bloomington, I was invited my old friend Sam Konkin, creator of the original left libertarian list on Yahoo, to participate in some online discussions. He told me that Wendy had defended herself against the plagiarism charge on that list (though I never saw her posts), while adding that he didn't want me to post any responses to her whatsoever.

I was enraged. How was it that Wendy could say anything she liked on that list, but I was forbidden by Sam to give my side of the story? Sam and I exchanged many emails on this problem. His excuse was basically that he didn't want to lose Wendy's friendship. When I asked Sam if he had a personal opinion on the matter, he conceded that I was probably right, but this didn't matter, since he didn't believe in copyright laws.

When I responded that this issue had nothing to do with copyright, and that I was in fact pursuing justice in the court of public opinion -- something that Sam had always advocated -- Sam dropped the subject. I liked Sam, but he wimped out on this controversy.

That really pisses me off. What chance is there for liberty if the intellectuals who are advocating it are either plagiarizing others' work or looking the other way when a friend's work is plagiarized? Fuck! It makes libertarianism look like a crappy little movement populated with pointy-headed shitbags who do a lot of showboat intellectual theorizing but who have to be dragged kicking and screaming into practicing what they preach. They almost come across as trying to give opponents of liberty proof that even freedom's advocates can't handle the responsibility of freedom.

When, in 1998, I sent all my emails to a prominent Neo-Objectivist who had published a favorable comment on TRW, he responded by saying that, yes, Wendy had obviously committed plagiarism, but he had praised only TRW, not Wendy per se. Thus, in the final analysis, it didn't matter who had really written TRW. It was still a good book, and he saw no reason to publish a disclaimer.

Although these were extreme cases, they illustrate what I noted earlier on this thread, namely, that some well-known libertarians refused to come out publicly against Wendy in 1998 -- not because they didn't believe me but because of some horseshit technical reason. In fact, they simply did not want to alienate Wendy and lose her friendship.

I honestly believe that Wendy is still counting on this passive reaction by libertarians, especially men...

I just did a Google image search for "Wendy McElroy," and to me she looks like a frumpy hippy granny. Okay, so why are libertarian men so gaga over her? Is she the only woman they know, or the only one who doesn't treat them like ugly, socially awkward, loner dorks?

Or is there more to it? Have some of these twerps actually gotten a little taste of granny-sugar, and they're hoping to get more? If so, how easy would it be to turn most of these "libertarians" into statists? With the promise of a handjob from Pam Anderson, would SEK3 have been goose-stepping in jackboots?

J

Wendy is much older now, and we all tend to get "frumpy" as we age. I certainly have. In her younger years, Wendy was very pretty, and men fell over her like blind men over a log. Moreover, when I knew her, Wendy radiated great intelligence and an intense sexuality. I always liked and admired those aspects of her personality.

The last time I saw Wendy was in 2004, at an ISIL conference in New Zealand. She looked much different, but then so did I. We passed each other several times, but said nothing.

One morning I got up early for breakfast, because I wanted to beat the crowd. Food was served in a salad bar style, where people could get food from both sides of a long table. When I looked up, Wendy was standing on the other side of the serving table, directly across from me. No one else was around, and we glanced at each other -- but again, we said nothing.

All this seemed very strange to me. I seriously thought about asking Wendy, the next time I passed her, "Would you like to talk for a minute?" But I figured she would ignore me and keep on walking, so what was the point? I wasn't in the mood to be snubbed by her, of all people.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wendy is much older now, and we all tend to get "frumpy" as we age. I certainly have.

Thanks for the warning, George. I think I still have time for proactive avoidance: take my vitamins, stay out of the sun, buy some hairpeace.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I emailed this letter to Wendy early this morning. I figured this was a futile effort, but I thought I would make one last attempt. Wendy didn't respond, of course. Big mistake.

----- Original Message -----

From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@comcast.net>

To: "Wendy McElroy" <wendy@wendymcelroy.com>

Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 1:43 AM

Subject: Read this

Wendy,

One last time: Do you want to attempt to resolve this matter

between the two of us?

If so, I want to deal with you. Not Brad. Not Kinsella.

You.

You have an unfortunate habit of not responding to

reasonable offers, so if I don't hear from you by noon

tomorrow, that's it. I'm tired of this shit.

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wendy is much older now, and we all tend to get "frumpy" as we age. I certainly have.

Thanks for the warning, George. I think I still have time for proactive avoidance: take my vitamins, stay out of the sun, buy some hairpeace.

--Brant

You will make a fine looking corpse.

When I die, I expect people to look at my body and say: "Damn! I'm surprised he lived as long as he did!"

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stumbled across the Amazon comments (it is not actually a review after all), and thanks to a facebook friend referral I came to this site. I have only just begun reading the thread, I'm about 9 pages in at this point, but several things have already struck me as peculiar to say the least. I will try to present these as I go. This is not the first, but it is substantive and telling.

“I had no explanation, except that Wendy did this solely and specifically to cause me immense and lasting pain. “

One of the traits of the logician, or anyone who is knowledgeable of logic is the ability to see alternatives. This is derived from the necessity to avoid the false dichotomy fallacy. I can come up with dozens of possible explanations, the first of which is that your premise is false, off of the top of my head, as could anyone who had actually written a book on logic. This failure to see possibilities give any of us familiar with logic one good reason for skepticism.

I also found the very early use of bullying disturbing, as bullying is never necessary if you have a sound argument.

“But I want to say again that you should refrain offering unsolicited criticims at this stage, because, to be perfectly blunt, you dont have all the facts, and you don't know what the hell you are talking about. This is a lot more complicated that most people realize. “[sic]

This is naught but simple bullying of someone who pointed out, quite rightly, that you have not proved your case. Just as with the “excerpt” you offered prior to that remark, everything you have offered has been purely from your stash of “private knowledge.” It has all been naught but an appeal to authority, with a bit of a god complex thrown in. Anyone who had read the book, much less written it would know better than to make such obvious logical errors.

Criticism certainly can be offered without total knowledge, if that criticism is limited to what has been offered. For instance my own is directly squarely at the logical errors presented, as well as the example of bullying. I don't need to know what shirt you were wearing in on February 5th, 1982 in order to criticize the bullying or recognize the use of fallacious arguments.

Though I am only through page 9, all of the references there to a "reasonable offer" pointed to unreasonable demands. I will wait until I get to this last page before saying for certain, but I would suspect that this latest email reference to a "reasonable offer" falls into the same category. A reasonable offer might take the form of "I am sorry, I will drop this now. You need not reply. ghs"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Bertrand, no one has been more bullied on this thread by George than me, and it was worked out between us. I'm still here. When George bullies you you deal with that then; this thread is about something else. It really isn't bullying by him, btw, it's his intensity and focus. I suggest you keep on reading instead of assuming everybody is behind your comprehensions instead of way ahead of them.

--Brant

what next?

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stumbled across the Amazon comments (it is not actually a review after all), and thanks to a facebook friend referral I came to this site. I have only just begun reading the thread, I'm about 9 pages in at this point, but several things have already struck me as peculiar to say the least. I will try to present these as I go. This is not the first, but it is substantive and telling.

“I had no explanation, except that Wendy did this solely and specifically to cause me immense and lasting pain. “

One of the traits of the logician, or anyone who is knowledgeable of logic is the ability to see alternatives. This is derived from the necessity to avoid the false dichotomy fallacy. I can come up with dozens of possible explanations, the first of which is that your premise is false, off of the top of my head, as could anyone who had actually written a book on logic. This failure to see possibilities give any of us familiar with logic one good reason for skepticism.

I also found the very early use of bullying disturbing, as bullying is never necessary if you have a sound argument.

“But I want to say again that you should refrain offering unsolicited criticims at this stage, because, to be perfectly blunt, you dont have all the facts, and you don't know what the hell you are talking about. This is a lot more complicated that most people realize. “[sic]

This is naught but simple bullying of someone who pointed out, quite rightly, that you have not proved your case. Just as with the “excerpt” you offered prior to that remark, everything you have offered has been purely from your stash of “private knowledge.” It has all been naught but an appeal to authority, with a bit of a god complex thrown in. Anyone who had read the book, much less written it would know better than to make such obvious logical errors.

Criticism certainly can be offered without total knowledge, if that criticism is limited to what has been offered. For instance my own is directly squarely at the logical errors presented, as well as the example of bullying. I don't need to know what shirt you were wearing in on February 5th, 1982 in order to criticize the bullying or recognize the use of fallacious arguments.

Though I am only through page 9, all of the references there to a "reasonable offer" pointed to unreasonable demands. I will wait until I get to this last page before saying for certain, but I would suspect that this latest email reference to a "reasonable offer" falls into the same category. A reasonable offer might take the form of "I am sorry, I will drop this now. You need not reply. ghs"

Bertand,

If you want to skip all the personal stuff and read some of the hard evidence I have posted on this thread, consult he following links:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=136775

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=136780

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=136967

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=137121

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=137125

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=137134

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=137245

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=137247

As I pointed out many times, Wendy McElroy and her attorney have claimed many times that she had absolutely no access to my FOR (Fundamental of Reasoning) transcripts while she was writing TRW.

Read these parallel passages (which are only a small fraction of the total). Then you tell me if you think Wendy was telling the truth.

I know this thread is long and involved, taking many detours into areas that are not essential to my case. So read the links above, and tell me what you think.

Meanwhile, you don't need to add [sic] to indicate errors in the original. I type things quickly and typically make many typos. No need to be pedantic about it.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bertrand,

Speaking of logic, most of Wendy's material on definitions was plagiarized from two articles I published (c. 1986) in a small circulation high school debate zine. See the information below, written in 1998.

When I wrote this, my articles were not available online. This is no longer the case, however; they have since been reprinted in an online book, so you can verify my claims for yourself. Go here for the book.

My articles on definitions begin on page 5, so you will need to scroll down. As I said, these were published c. 1986 -- eight years before Wendy said she began writing TRW in 1994.

The following are just samples; there are many similar instances. Since you are so keen on logical explanations, please explain how so much of my stuff, both published and unpublished, ended up verbatim (or nearly verbatim) in Wendy's TRW.

I look forward to reading your logical explanation.

Ghs

[Written in 1998, by Ghs]

Following is a preliminary sample of parallel passages between THE REASONABLE WOMAN and two articles I published in the high-school debate journal, “The LD/Extemp Monthly.” Please do not circulate this yet, until I complete the list and until I am able to run a careful check between the manuscript of my articles (from which I took these passages) and their published version. I don’t recall that any changes were made between my manuscripts as submitted and the published versions, but I want to make sure and avoid the possibility of even minor mistakes.

What follows is just a fraction of what will eventually be the final version of this list of plagiarized passages from my PUBLISHED articles.

GHS

NOTE: I have used the marks <> to indicate italicized passages in TRW.

Smith: “The two basic components of a definition are as follows:

DEFINIENDUM: The word or concept being defined. In ‘man is a rational animal,’ the term ‘man’ is the definiendum.”

McElroy, p. 200: “The two basic components of a definition are:

<Definiendum>: The word or concept being defined. In the definition, ‘woman is a rational animal,’ the term ‘woman’ is the definiendum.”

Smith, cont.: DEFINIENS: The defining part of the definition. In ‘man is a rational animal,” the term ‘rational animal’ is the definiens.”

McElroy, p. 200: Identical to the above, except “Definiens” is in italics, and “woman” is substituted for “man.”

Smith: “A triangle is a plane figure having three straight sides.

‘plane figure’ = the genus

‘having three straight sides’ = the differentia

‘triangle’ = a species of the genus ‘plane figure’”

McElroy, p. 201: Identical to the above.

Smith: “1. Definitions should not be too broad. For example, the definition of a circle as: ‘a figure, all of whose points are equidistant from a given point’ is too broad, It includes the arc of the circle and other spheres. Thus, we should differentiate more. ‘A circle is a closed, plane figure, all of whose points are equidistant from a given point.’ This definition excludes arcs and spheres, and refers exclusively to circles.”

McElroy, pp. 201-2: “1. <Definitions should not be too broad>….[C]onsider the definition of a circle….: ‘a figure, all of whose points are equidistant from a given point’ is too broad because it includes the severed arc of the circle. Thus, another and more specific X,Y,Z is required. ‘A circle is a closed, plane figure, all of whose points are equidistant from a given point.’ This definition excludes arcs and other spheres, referring exclusively to circles.”

Smith: “2. Definitions should not be too narrow. They should not exclude some instances of the definiendum. Thus, ‘A thief is a person who steals money; is too narrow. What about someone who steals a car? The definition excludes certain instances of the word ‘thief.’”

McElroy, p. 202: “2. <Definitions should not be too narrow.> They should not exclude some instances of the word being defined, the definiendum. For example, the definition ‘Woman is the animal that gives birth to human beings’ is too narrow since some women are childless. The definition excludes certain instances of the word ‘woman.’”

Smith: “Otherwise stated: A definition should apply to ALL possible cases of the definiendum, and ONLY to those cases. If it does not apply to ALL instances, then it is too narrow.”

McElroy, p. 202: “Otherwise stated: A definition must apply to <all> possible cases of the definiendum. If it does not apply to <all> instances, then it is too narrow.”

Smith: “3. A definition should state the essential characteristic(s) of the definiendum. By ‘essential’ is mean the characteristic(s} which best explains the greatest number of the other characteristics of the definiendum.”

McElroy, p. 202: “3. <A definition should state the essential characteristics of the definiendum>: that is, it should state the characteristics that best explains any other unique characteristics of ‘woman.’”

Smith: “But man’s ability to build computers does not, in itself, explain his ability to build high-rises, bridges or cars. Man’s rational capacity does explain this. Thus, ‘rational’ is a more essential characteristic and a better differentia.”

McElroy, p. 202: “But woman’s ability to laugh or to build computers does not, in itself, explain her ability to paint a picture, or drive a car, or cook a gourmet meal. Thus, ‘rational’ is a more essential characteristic and a better differentia.”

Smith: “A definition should not be circular. A circular definition is one which makes use of the very word being defined. Thus, ‘a carpenter is a craftsman who practices carpentry’ is circular. Only if you know a form of the word ‘carpenter’ in the first place will the definition make sense to you.”

McElroy,p. 202: <A definition should not be circular.> A circular definition is one that makes use of the very word being defined. Thus, ‘a carpenter is a craftsman who practices carpentry’ is circular. Only if you have an understanding of the word ‘carpenter’ in the first place will that supposed definition make sense to you.”

Smith: “Definitions should not be obscure….Avoid jargon and specialized language. The purpose of a definition is to give you access to the meaning of a word, not to obscure it.”

McElroy: <Definitions should not be obscure>…..Avoid jargon and specialized language. The purpose of a definition is to give you access to the meaning of a word, not to obscure it.”

AND SO IT GOES, FOR EIGHT CONSECUTIVE PAGES IN MCELROY’S TRW.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF WENDY McELROY'S PLAGIARISM

This is a very long and involved thread, so I appreciate how confusing it must be for outsiders to venture into all this stuff, some of which is personal and very seamy.

I am therefore compiling a list of links to essential posts that discuss only the hard evidence. Thus, if OLers wish to refer friends and others to this thread, please link this post. This will get newbies started with the parallel passages, which is the foundation of my charge that Wendy McElroy committed massive plagiarism in TRW (The Reasonable Woman).

I will update this post as needed. There are other key posts on OL that I may add, as I locate them.

Here are the essential links thus far:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=136775

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=136780

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=136967

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=137121

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=137125

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=137134

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=137245

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=137247

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=136884

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=137294

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=137352

(Added 6/18/2011 - 1:28 a.m.)

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=136944

(Added 6/19/2011 - 2:01 p.m.)

Again, please refer to this page as the root link. This will enable newbies to view the essentials without all the tangential and irrelevant stuff. They can then review the entire thread, if they like.

All you need do is copy and paste the following link for this page:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=137297

This one link will do the trick.

I am selling xerox copies of my FOR transcripts (98 pages, single spaced) for $40. People who purchase these transcripts will be able to locate all the plagiarized passages in TRW. If you are interested, write to me at: smikro@comcast.net.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George, I will look into the links. I am also still catching up on the thread, though the only confusions so far are why the rampant use of fallacies along with the magical appearance of new material have not been the focus.

Brant, you cannot find any hint of basis for your accusations, so perhaps the presumption of knowing my unstated beliefs should be avoided. Unless of course you simply enjoy posting falsehoods.

Edited by Bertrand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

George, I will look into the links. I am also still catching up on the thread, though the only confusions so far are why the rampant use of fallacies along with the magical appearance of new material have not been the focus.

Brant, you cannot find any hint of basis for your accusations, so perhaps the presumption of knowing my unstated beliefs should be avoided. Unless of course you simply enjoy posting falsehoods.

What "magical appearance of new material" are you referring to? All parallels I have posted from FOR are on my original FOR Wordstar floppy, dated Oct. 2, 1988 -- six years before Wendy started writing TRW and a decade before TRW was published I gave several people copies of this disk in 1998, including Prometheus Books, shortly after TRW was published.

If you are suggesting that I have forged anything, then explain how so much of my published material ended up in TRW.

Given your snide remarks, I want to know something up front. Are a friend of Wendy McElroy?

Meanwhile, since you are a master logician, I look forward to reading your logical explanations on her behalf. Good luck with that.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I skipped to your presumable “penultimate” example: #317

Smith: “But!, Popper pointed out, you can disprove a theory by observing one single white swan. Therefore a theory which cannot be verified, can be disproven. All it takes is one counterinstance, one counter factual condition and the theory is proven false.”

McElroy, p. 211: “But! Popper pointed out, you can disprove the theory by observing one single white swan. Therefore, a theory that cannot be conclusively verified can be absolutely disproven. All it takes to falsify a theory, such as “Swans are black birds,” is the presence of one swan that is not black.”

Err.. You do realize that this example and essentially this same wording is used in virtually every intro to logic class right? Some elements are so ingrained into a field that they appear everywhere, such as “turtles all the way down” or “truth is that which corresponds with reality.”

Exchange “Theory” for “universal” and I have used essentially that same line countless times in the past both teaching and simply in discussions as to why universal claims are easily disproved. I have never read your TOR, nor even heard of it until now. It has had zero influence on me by any stretch of the imagination (particularly since I was using the line BEFORE the time period in question) so your necessity/causal claim must be false.

As for your creation of the word “But” well, that does not fly..

If “But!” is your flag word, as you argue, then why your own counter-example using “note:?”

“McElroy, p. 214: “It was not that Freudian theory could not be refuted because it was correct, but that the system of theory was constructed in such a manner as to eliminate the very possibility of disconfirming cases.”

Exactly what does it mean to say: “It was not that Freudian theory could not be refuted because it was correct….etc..”? This passage borders on gibberish; certainly Popper never said anything like this. Rather, Wendy simply removed the word “Note,” and, instead of realizing that there was a problem with Popper’s approach -- one that I needed to flesh out at a later time -- she blended my remark into her text with no understanding of its meaning.

This is not only plagiarism, this is incompetent plagiarism. “

So because you prove that it is not plagiarism, it must be plagiarism but a poor form? Come on, I would have failed any intro student who put forth that sloppy of an argument.

“So please explain to me how Wendy's But! passage and her Freudian theory passage ended up in TRW. Do you think this was sheer concidence? “

Do you contend therefore that you originated not only the word “but” but* also Freudian theory?? Really?

Are you going after every author who has used either or both of these without crediting you?

And what of the meta-level problem, that of the absence of evidence? All you have offered is your own claims. Will you acknowledge that you are plagiarizing me if I copy and past the same lines telling you that I “found” it on the tapes from my old Vic 20? No reasonable person should be convinced by this since at the most generous it is an appeal to authority combined with an appeal to private “knowledge.” In fact it is somewhat ironic that you bring up Popper since you don't allow even the consideration of this very important concern, that is by relying solely on private “knowledge” and appeals to yourself as “authority” as well as discounting not only alternative explanations but direct citing of fallacies, you are creating what is by your own dictates an unfalsifiable position. Essentially you are claiming that no counter evidence can be considered and false dichotomies must be ignored.

Evidence MUST be verifiable. What you've offered is not verifiable, thus is not in fact evidence at all, but merely a restatement of your position or yet another red herring depending on the particular example of non-evidence.

If you honestly believe that this is as conclusive, and thus essentially the best you can offer on the subject, then you are correct that I won't be convinced by such offerings, nor will anyone who has taken and understood even a basic introductory logic class.

*and jftr I am not plagiarizing you when I used “but.”

Edited by Bertrand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I skipped to your presumable “penultimate” example: #317

Smith: “But!, Popper pointed out, you can disprove a theory by observing one single white swan. Therefore a theory which cannot be verified, can be disproven. All it takes is one counterinstance, one counter factual condition and the theory is proven false.”

McElroy, p. 211: “But! Popper pointed out, you can disprove the theory by observing one single white swan. Therefore, a theory that cannot be conclusively verified can be absolutely disproven. All it takes to falsify a theory, such as “Swans are black birds,” is the presence of one swan that is not black.”

Err.. You do realize that this example and essentially this same wording is used in virtually every intro to logic class right? Some elements are so ingrained into a field that they appear everywhere, such as “turtles all the way down” or “truth is that which corresponds with reality.”

Exchange “Theory” for “universal” and I have used essentially that same line countless times in the past both teaching and simply in discussions as to why universal claims are easily disproved. I have never read your TOR, nor even heard of it until now. It has had zero influence on me by any stretch of the imagination (particularly since I was using the line BEFORE the time period in question) so your necessity/causal claim must be false.

As for your creation of the word “But” well, that does not fly..

If “But!” is your flag word, as you argue, then why your own counter-example using “note:?”

“McElroy, p. 214: “It was not that Freudian theory could not be refuted because it was correct, but that the system of theory was constructed in such a manner as to eliminate the very possibility of disconfirming cases.”

Exactly what does it mean to say: “It was not that Freudian theory could not be refuted because it was correct….etc..”? This passage borders on gibberish; certainly Popper never said anything like this. Rather, Wendy simply removed the word “Note,” and, instead of realizing that there was a problem with Popper’s approach -- one that I needed to flesh out at a later time -- she blended my remark into her text with no understanding of its meaning.

This is not only plagiarism, this is incompetent plagiarism. “

So because you prove that it is not plagiarism, it must be plagiarism but a poor form? Come on, I would have failed any intro student who put forth that sloppy of an argument.

“So please explain to me how Wendy's But! passage and her Freudian theory passage ended up in TRW. Do you think this was sheer concidence? “

Do you contend therefore that you originated not only the word “but” but* also Freudian theory?? Really?

Are you going after every author who has used either or both of these without crediting you?

And what of the meta-level problem, that of the absence of evidence? All you have offered is your own claims. Will you acknowledge that you are plagiarizing me if I copy and past the same lines telling you that I “found” it on the tapes from my old Vic 20? No reasonable person should be convinced by this since at the most generous it is an appeal to authority combined with an appeal to private “knowledge.” In fact it is somewhat ironic that you bring up Popper since you don't allow even the consideration of this very important concern, that is by relying solely on private “knowledge” and appeals to yourself as “authority” as well as discounting not only alternative explanations but direct citing of fallacies, you are creating what is by your own dictates an unfalsifiable position. Essentially you are claiming that no counter evidence can be considered and false dichotomies must be ignored.

Evidence MUST be verifiable. What you've offered is not verifiable, thus is not in fact evidence at all, but merely a restatement of your position or yet another red herring depending on the particular example of non-evidence.

*and jftr I am not plagiarizing you when I used “but.”

Thanks a bunch for the irrelevant post. I repeat: Wendy claims that she did not refer in any way whatsover to my FOR transcripts when writing TRW.

Of course, the example of a white swan is commonplace. That wasn't my point at all. I was referring to the unusual use of But! and to the verbatim wording that followed. We are discussing plagiarism here, oh master logician.

Your philosophy students should flunk you for missing the point.

I use all kinds of notations in my manuscripts, depending on the context, just as I use all kinds of notations in the margins of books.

Your "meta-level" analysis is pure crap. (Meta-level," my ass.) Even Wendy never denied the existence of my FOR transcripts. That was never an issue. The issue is whether she used my transcripts while writing TRW. She obviously did, contrary to her repeated claims.

I still have the original FOR floppy disk (5-1/4"), which contains antiquated Wordstar versions of my FOR transcripts. Wendy transcribed all this material from tapes of my classes. This is how my FOR files ended up on her computer.

The label on that old floppy reads: "FOR. Oct. 2, 1988." This is written in Wendy's hand.

You may consider yourself a master logician, but you don't have an ounce of common sense.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stumbled across the Amazon comments (it is not actually a review after all), and thanks to a facebook friend referral I came to this site.

Mr. Russel, welcome to OL.

Out of curiosity, what were you looking for when you "...stumbled across the Amazon comments...?"

Secondly, who was the friend who referred you to this site?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My direct responses and direct citing of fallacious arguments, bullying, appeals to "authority", appeals to private "knowledge" and the like are due to two dislikes of mine: bullies, and abuse of logic. Assuming that because someone is reasonable and knows logic they must be a friend of Wendy McElroy, is quite a stretch. I have read TRW, and Dissenting Electorate, so I am somewhat familiar with her work, but I have not followed her every move nor read everything she has written. I certainly don't get to sit back and share a beer with her, as you seem to assume.

Furthermore this particular red herring is also insulting as I suspect it was intended to be. That or like the law of non-contradiction, you are not familiar with the aspect of logic that notes the the person offering an argument (or refutations) is unimportant, what is important is whether the argument is sound or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was providing a link for a friend to TRW. As for who told me about that thread, why on earth does that matter? What does that have to do with the content of the cited fallacies or refutations? I know that emotions are running high on this thread and I would rather not have even a FB friend attacked because I dare to question abuse of reason.

I stumbled across the Amazon comments (it is not actually a review after all), and thanks to a facebook friend referral I came to this site.

Mr. Russel, welcome to OL.

Out of curiosity, what were you looking for when you "...stumbled across the Amazon comments...?"

Secondly, who was the friend who referred you to this site?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“So please explain to me how Wendy's But! passage and her Freudian theory passage ended up in TRW. Do you think this was sheecoincidencece? “

Do you contend therefore that you originated not only the word “but” but* also Freudian theory?? Really?

Are you going after every author who has used either or both of these without crediting you?

Right, everyone uses But! as a single word sentence -- italicized and with an exclamation point --at the exactly the same point that I used it in my discussion of Popper, and then follows up this But! with the same wording that I used when discussing Popper. This is oh-so-common and oh-so-likely to have occurred.

You are either a dope or another plant that Wendy has sent to defend her honor. (There have been two others over the past the several days, but they both saw the light and beat a hasty retreat.)

If you want me to respond further to your posts, then I want to know your real name. What is it? And where do you teach? I'm not going to waste my time with a troll. Any semi-competent undergraduate student in philosophy could have written your posts so far.

Meanwhile, read the other parallels I posted, and give us another "meta-level" analysis.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Thanks a bunch for the irrelevant post. “

This goes directly to one of the points I made. By dismissing and ignoring all refutation, you are merely stipulating hat your position is unfalsifiable. This stipulation removes your position from the realm of reality since you do not allow reason and evidence to play their necessary role.

“Your philosophy students should flunk you for missing the point. “

I got your point, and showed that you failed logically speaking, to make the case. I went further and completely refuted your necessity/causal claim by offering up a simple but sufficient counter-example. Instead of addressing these, you simply dismiss them with an ad hominem.

Or two: “You may consider yourself a master logician, but you don't have an ounce of common sense. “

From a false premise...

It would be nice to have the questions answered and refutations/counter-examples addressed as one would find in any honest intellectual discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My direct responses and direct citing of fallacious arguments....

You have not cited any fallacious arguments -- not one.

But try staying on point. Read all of the parallel passages that I linked and give me an explanation, along with your real name.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Thanks a bunch for the irrelevant post. “

This goes directly to one of the points I made. By dismissing and ignoring all refutation, you are merely stipulating hat your position is unfalsifiable. This stipulation removes your position from the realm of reality since you do not allow reason and evidence to play their necessary role.

“Your philosophy students should flunk you for missing the point. “

I got your point, and showed that you failed logically speaking, to make the case. I went further and completely refuted your necessity/causal claim by offering up a simple but sufficient counter-example. Instead of addressing these, you simply dismiss them with an ad hominem.

Or two: “You may consider yourself a master logician, but you don't have an ounce of common sense. “

From a false premise...

It would be nice to have the questions answered and refutations/counter-examples addressed as one would find in any honest intellectual discussion.

What pretentious bunk this is. God help your students, if you really are a teacher.

So tell me: Do you really think that Wendy's use of the thrice-accentuated But! was sheer coincidence, especially when it is followed by more verbatim material? Are you serious?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was providing a link for a friend to TRW. As for who told me about that thread, why on earth does that matter? What does that have to do with the content of the cited fallacies or refutations? I know that emotions are running high on this thread and I would rather not have even a FB friend attacked because I dare to question abuse of reason.

I stumbled across the Amazon comments (it is not actually a review after all), and thanks to a facebook friend referral I came to this site.

Mr. Russel, welcome to OL.

Out of curiosity, what were you looking for when you "...stumbled across the Amazon comments...?"

Secondly, who was the friend who referred you to this site?

Adam

Bert:

Whoa Skippy!

I said out of curiosity. I do not have a dog in this fight.

My friend, I perceive a tad bit of defensiveness in your quick protestations. No one will bother your Facebook friend from this site.

At least give us some evidence of your ethos regarding teaching logic. Chalk it up to the fact that I taught Aristotelian rhetoric.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now