Confessions Of A Sceptic
The Nemesis of Faith (1849)
Context: Happily I had very early learned the fallacy of building much on logic and verbal argument. Single sets of truths I knew to be as little conclusive in theology as in physics; and, in one as in the other, no theory to be worth anything, however plausibly backed up with Scripture texts or facts, which was not gathered bona fide from the analysis of all the attainable phenomena, and verified wherever possible by experiment.
"Here is a theory of the world which you bring for my acceptance: well, there is the world; try — will the key fit? can you read the language into sense by it?" was the only method; and so I was led always to look at broad results, at pages and chapters, rather than at single words and sentences, where for a few lines a false key may serve to make a meaning. So of these broad observations I only expected a broad solution.
“The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.”
“I am the logic of all arguments - Arguments are of three kinds:”
1) jalpa (arrogant argument) – In this type of argument one tries to establish one's point of view by contradicting the opponent's argument without considering whether the opponent's argument is right or wrong.
2) vitanda (destructive criticism) – In this type of argument the person simply destroys the opponent's viewpoint by misleading argument.
3) vada (logical argument) – In this type of argument one uses a method of discussion with reasoning with an aim to find out what is truth and what is untruth. Reasoning is the best method of discussion to achieve the truth. This is why the Lord says, “Among arguments, I am vada or logical argument.”
Srimad Bhagavad Gita, Ch. VII-XII, 2014
“Ad hominem argument saves time, but it's still a fallacy.”
Also in Fallen Angels (Baen Books, 1992) as: "Niven's Law: No cause is so noble that it won't attract fuggheads."
Niven's Laws
Context: 16) There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it.
To prove a point, one may seek out a foolish Socialist, thirteenth century Liberal, Scientologist, High Frontier advocate, Mensa member, science fiction fan, Jim Bakker acolyte, Christian, witch, or fanatical devotee of Special Interest Lib. It doesn't really reflect on the cause itself. Ad hominem argument saves time, but it's still a fallacy.
“An ounce of algebra is worth a ton of verbal argument.”
As quoted in his obituary by Maynard Smith http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/maynardsmith/pdf/1965.pdf in Nature 206 (1965), p. 239
“What I learned at a very early age was that I was responsible for my life.”
O Magazine (January 2007), pages 160 & 217
Context: What I learned at a very early age was that I was responsible for my life. And as I became more spiritually conscious, I learned that we all are responsible for ourselves, that you create your own reality by the way you think and therefore act. You cannot blame apartheid, your parents, your circumstances, because you are not your circumstances. You are your possibilities. If you know that, you can do anything.
“I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.”
"The Making of a Scientist," p. 14 <!-- Feynman used variants of this bird story repeatedly: (1) "What is Science?", presented at the fifteenth annual meeting of the National Science Teachers Association, in New York City (1966) published in The Physics Teacher, volume 7, issue 6 (1969), p. 313-320. (2) Interview for the BBC TV Horizon program "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out" (1981), published in Christopher Sykes, No Ordinary Genius: The Illustrated Richard Feynman (1994), p. 27. -->
What Do You Care What Other People Think? (1988)
Context: You can know the name of that bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird. You'll only know about humans in different places, and what they call the bird. … I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.
Introduction to Aristotle's Organon, as translated by Octavius Freire Owen (1853), p. v
Context: The utility of a science which enables men to take cognizance of the travellers on the mind's highway, and excludes those disorderly interlopers, verbal fallacies, needs but small attestation. Its searching penetration by definition alone, before which even mathematical precision fails, would especially commend it to those whom the abstruseness of the study does not terrify, and who recognise the valuable results which must attend discipline of mind. Like a medicine, though not a panacea for every ill, it has the health of the mind for its aim, but requires the determination of a powerful will to imbibe its nauseating yet wholesome influence: it is no wonder therefore that puny intellects, like weak stomachs, abhor and reject it.
“All logical arguments can be defeated by the simple refusal to reason logically”
Source: Dreams of a Final Theory
