Cambridge University refuses to censor student's thesis

> On the other hand, it's only a logical fallacy if it fouls an argument. ... > It's part of an explanation for why he won't do something

ergo it's an appeal to authority or at the very least an appeal to tradition/precedent (or I suppose even lesser a non sequitur)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

either way, it's a fascinatingly shoddy, and unnecessary, argument that severely detracts from the otherwise fine argument. A simple, "this paper represents basic security research. We believe censoring basic research is wrong and harmful. Therefore we will not censor this research." would have done.

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, but it's impossible to make a statement about the world without relying on inductive examples.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Not all discourse is argument. And not everything you say, even in the course of an argument, is itself argument. Here's the full paragraph which includes the mention of Erasmus and company:

>> Second, you seem to think that we might censor a student's thesis, which is lawful and already in the public domain, simply because a powerful interest finds it inconvenient. This shows a deep misconception of what universities are and how we work. Cambridge is the University of Erasmus, of Newton, and of Darwin; censoring writings that offend the powerful is offensive to our deepest values. Thus even though the decision to put the thesis online was Omar's, we have no choice but to back him. That would hold even if we did not agree with the material! Accordingly I have authorised the thesis to be issued as a Computer Laboratory Technical Report. This will make it easier for people to find and to cite, and will ensure that its presence on our web site is permanent....

I would say that nothing in the paragraph is anything like a formal argument. The author is not moving from premise to premise towards a conclusion. That whole paragraph is a piece of rhetoric, intended to display to the reader (the person the letter is addressed to and the rest of the world) the values of Cambridge University.

When I mentioned syllogisms above, I wasn't being glib or flip. That part of the letter doesn't belong in the category of argument[1]; it's epideictic[2]. Judging it by some list of logical fallacies is a category mistake.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epideictic

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 UK Card Association's reasoning asking for censorship of the research. It presents a clear conclusion ~"we will not censor the thesis" supported by clearly labeled premises, specifically:

1) The Card Association incorrectly addressed the complaint so they are asking the wrong people to censor the thesis

2) Because powerful groups are against a research area is not reason to censor the work. I can see how one might find this premise confusing since he only dwells on it for the first sentence of the paragraph. The rest of the paragraph is composed of the logical flaw in question, and then epideictic rhetoric about the noble business of Universities followed by an FU statement that they are also going to ensure the thesis spreads far and wide in direct opposition to the complaint. In other words, the second paragraph is a mess.

The argument of the premise is simple and is in fact an admonition against the logical flaw the complainant is using "we are strong so you must do as we say", but Anderson blends and conflates it with rhetoric and the flaw, concluding "thus we have no choice but to back him, that would hold even if we did not agree with the material!"

3) The thesis is not new information anyways, so to ask for its censor makes no sense.

4) The source was not made available, so to the consumer of the thesis, they only have knowledge that the vulnerability exists, ergo they are asking to censor something that does not harm

5) The test of the thesis was not fraud, as the complainants claim, therefore asking for censorship under that claim makes no sense.

6) That the thesis exposes a vulnerability that undermines public confidence in the security of the system, but since the flaw has been apparently fixed, there is no reason to censor the thesis.

Conclusion) We will not censor the thesis because the logic of the premises hold true that the thesis should not be censored.

I do agree with you that the original response is not a formal logical argument in the strictest sense, and has elements of rhetoric (particularly in the 2nd premise), but it's clearly framed as at the very least a rational argument.

The letter in it's entirety are certainly not epideictic by any of my understandings of the term nor by your link. However, both the second and sixth premises contain elements of epideictic rhetoric. (btw, the presence of the logical flaw doesn't necessarily invalidate the 2nd premise since the passage is non-sequitur to the premise anyways!)

I think that's what you are trying to say here And not everything you say, even in the course of an argument, is itself argument. And I would agree with that sentiment. However, in this case, the sentence in question is clearly part of a logical argument and is a classic usage of a logical flaw.

I fully understand how Anderson would have written such a thing, impassioned as he must be over the issue. I actually found his argument persuasive and much milder in tone than I would have managed.

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.