Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cambridge University refuses to censor student's thesis

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–68 of 68 posts

Re: Cambridge University refuses to censor student's thesis

#61

Post by elblanco »

JabavuAdams wrote: post #60
elblanco wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that the original response was not an argument. I'd ask that you review Anderson's letter again. I'm also unsure why you are attempting to connect epideictic rhetoric (used in several places in the letter) to the logical flaw in question since the rhetoric you are raising occurs after the flaw in paragraph. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/Papers/ukca.pdf It's presented as an argument, it lists flaws in the…

Dude, enjoy talking to computers. Your pedantic arguments display a stunning lack of how to convince humans. Rhetoric is a tool that your opponents have mastered. If you fail to learn it, you may continue to be surprised at your inability to effect change, no matter how logical your arguments.

Funny thing to say on a site dedicated to building businesses using computers.

(and to the people here who've downvoted me such that I've just burned up 8 points of karma for simply pointing out there was a logical fallacy in the letter and who clearly don't understand what a logical fallacy looks like if it smacked them in the face, have a happy new year and I weep for you)

Re: Cambridge University refuses to censor student's thesis

#62

Post by elblanco »

aphyr wrote: post #54
elblanco wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also a surprising appeal to authority logical fallacy. Those people don't work there anymore. (not that I disagree with them that they shouldn't censor the findings)

As telemachos points out, this is not an appeal to authority. The article does not claim that Darwin et al would support this research; it claims that it is consistent with the university's character to publish the work. Furthermore, this sentence reminds us that in prior cases where authority has sought to suppress the university's research, the release was justified by history. It's not a purely deductive argument,…

> it claims that it is consistent with the university's character to publish the work.

that is not an appeal to authority.

The statement alone is sufficient for the argument, bringing in notable and revered historical figures does not improve the merit of his premise. He's saying, "it's in our character because of these notable authority figures". By definition it's an appeal to authority.

Why is this so hard to understand?

(meta-comment, seriously, what's with all the fucking downvotes? has nobody here ever seen a formal argument or a logical fallacy? I don't care if I burn karma for being wrong, but I'm not so what's the deal? If you downvoted and actually typed a response, please disregard my bitching (and yes I know the guidelines say I shouldn't say this kind of thing, but pg's going to have to establish some up/down mod guidelines one of these days, because clearly getting downvoted for making factual statements doesn't make any sense and it appears that this site is slipping again down the HN->reddit->digg->4chan slope again as recent posts about non-hackerish things are demonstrating))

Re: Cambridge University refuses to censor student's thesis

#63

Post by argv_empty »

elblanco wrote: post #62
aphyr wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As telemachos points out, this is not an appeal to authority. The article does not claim that Darwin et al would support this research; it claims that it is consistent with the university's character to publish the work. Furthermore, this sentence reminds us that in prior cases where authority has sought to suppress the university's research, the release was justified by history. It's not a purely deductive argument,…

> it claims that it is consistent with the university's character to publish the work. that is not an appeal to authority. The statement alone is sufficient for the argument, bringing in notable and revered historical figures does not improve the merit of his premise. He's saying, "it's in our character because of these notable authority figures". By definition it's an appeal to authority. Why is this so hard to unde…

seriously, what's with all the fucking downvotes? has nobody here ever seen a formal argument or a logical fallacy?

It's because you're being very persistent about reading something into the statement that really isn't there. Dropping well-respected names is not sufficient to make an appeal to authority. The speaker must also claim that the people named would support his position. Anderson does not do this. His use of those names is to point out Cambridge's prior history of supporting dissemination of information someone with power wishes to suppress. There is no appeal to authority, just a claim that this is how they roll. Why is this so hard to understand?

Re: Cambridge University refuses to censor student's thesis

#64

Post by marcamillion »

Intentionally or unintentionally, this has got to be one of the best pieces of marketing for research inclined students and faculty that they could have ever produced.

So much so, that the skeptic in me thinks this was intentionally leaked.

I had always considered possibly applying to the University of Cambridge, and I know they are Ivy League...but this letter, firmly solidifies them as a contender for any higher education I might pursue.

Re: Cambridge University refuses to censor student's thesis

#65

Post by apl »

elblanco wrote: post #61
JabavuAdams wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, enjoy talking to computers. Your pedantic arguments display a stunning lack of how to convince humans. Rhetoric is a tool that your opponents have mastered. If you fail to learn it, you may continue to be surprised at your inability to effect change, no matter how logical your arguments.

Funny thing to say on a site dedicated to building businesses using computers . (and to the people here who've downvoted me such that I've just burned up 8 points of karma for simply pointing out there was a logical fallacy in the letter and who clearly don't understand what a logical fallacy looks like if it smacked them in the face, have a happy new year and I weep for you)

Maybe you're just wrong about this? I know, crazy, but that kind of stuff does indeed happen. No one is out to get you.

The authors refuse to give up a student because it contradicts their core values as exemplified by several academic predecessors. There's no appeal to authority here -- it's their beliefs, held for presumably many valid reasons. Pointing out that these values constitute a long-standing tradition at Cambridge is not the justification on which the argument rests; it's merely a lovely rhetorical ornament.

(Let me add that construing the paragraph as a syllogism from premises to a conclusion is rather silly, even though Cambridge happens to be the birthplace of analytic philosophy. There's a thing called pragmatics, and the notion of argument being more than underlying logical form hasn't been controversial for 40 years.

Rationality ain't just logics.)

Re: Cambridge University refuses to censor student's thesis

#66

Post by JabavuAdams »

elblanco wrote: post #61
JabavuAdams wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, enjoy talking to computers. Your pedantic arguments display a stunning lack of how to convince humans. Rhetoric is a tool that your opponents have mastered. If you fail to learn it, you may continue to be surprised at your inability to effect change, no matter how logical your arguments.

Funny thing to say on a site dedicated to building businesses using computers . (and to the people here who've downvoted me such that I've just burned up 8 points of karma for simply pointing out there was a logical fallacy in the letter and who clearly don't understand what a logical fallacy looks like if it smacked them in the face, have a happy new year and I weep for you)

> Funny thing to say on a site dedicated to building businesses using computers.

Business, even the computer business, is overwhelmingly about people, not computers. If you cannot communicate effectively with people, you're doomed at business, even the tech business.

> or simply pointing out there was a logical fallacy in the letter

The problem here is that you're just reading the text of the replies, but not "reading between the lines". It's not that the responders can't see a logical flaw. Instead, they're seeing in your responses a broken model of how to convince people. They're trying to draw your attention to this, but you've been remarkably resistant to it, focusing only on the logical content of the argument.

> who clearly don't understand what a logical fallacy looks like if it smacked them in the face, have a happy new year and I weep for you

Oh please -- weep for your own naivete. These histrionics make you look inexperienced and oblivious to nuance.

Re: Cambridge University refuses to censor student's thesis

#67

Post by elblanco »

JabavuAdams wrote: post #66
elblanco wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny thing to say on a site dedicated to building businesses using computers . (and to the people here who've downvoted me such that I've just burned up 8 points of karma for simply pointing out there was a logical fallacy in the letter and who clearly don't understand what a logical fallacy looks like if it smacked them in the face, have a happy new year and I weep for you)

> Funny thing to say on a site dedicated to building businesses using computers. Business, even the computer business, is overwhelmingly about people, not computers. If you cannot communicate effectively with people, you're doomed at business, even the tech business. > or simply pointing out there was a logical fallacy in the letter The problem here is that you're just reading the text of the replies, but not "readin…

Thanks for reminding me how far down HN has come in the last six months or so. Engineering, science, logic and rational thought is no longer a valuable concepts here. This site is now firmly rooted in constant appeals to emotion. It's not about right or wrong anymore, or even best, it's about feelings.

As of 1/1/2011, I quit.

Re: Cambridge University refuses to censor student's thesis

#68

Post by JabavuAdams »

elblanco wrote: post #67
JabavuAdams wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Funny thing to say on a site dedicated to building businesses using computers. Business, even the computer business, is overwhelmingly about people, not computers. If you cannot communicate effectively with people, you're doomed at business, even the tech business. > or simply pointing out there was a logical fallacy in the letter The problem here is that you're just reading the text of the replies, but not "readin…

Thanks for reminding me how far down HN has come in the last six months or so. Engineering, science, logic and rational thought is no longer a valuable concepts here. This site is now firmly rooted in constant appeals to emotion. It's not about right or wrong anymore, or even best , it's about feelings . As of 1/1/2011, I quit.

See -- it works!

I shouldn't gloat, as you seem to post interesting articles and comments, but I couldn't pass up this object lesson.

Rhetoric > Reason for the foreseeable future. It's okay. Just accept it, use it, and you can still make the world a better place.

Or ... fail to accept this fact and let reality break you and make you unhappy and/or ineffective.

Post reply on HN