🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov11.173613.12104@waikato.ac.nz>, maj@waikato.ac.nz writes:
|> Gary Merrill in sci.classics :
|> 
|> 
|> Brian, you're being really dense here.  The point is not what kinds
|> of insight one acquires by being a woman, a slave, or a serf, but
|> rather what *position* one may gain by being a "feminist philosopher",
|> a "slave philospher",  or a "serf philosopher".
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> Gary Merrill in sci.logic  :
|> 
|> 
|> Ah yes.  The ultimate academic bugaboo:  funding.  Everything (even your
|> taxonomy of cognitive disciplines) must be a slave to funding.
|> 
|> 
|> -- 
|> Murray A. Jorgensen [ maj@waikato.ac.nz ]    University of Waikato
|> Department of Mathematics and Statistics     Hamilton, New Zealand      
|> __________________________________________________________________
|> 'Tis the song of the Jubjub! the proof is complete,
|> if only I've stated it thrice.'

No, not exactly.  While these remarks *might* be attacked as being
certain types of fallacies of relevance, the fallacy in question
are *not* ad hominem.  I refer you to Carney & Scheer, _Logic and
Argument_ for the details (or any decent book on rhetoric).

Moreover, since these were *not* offered as *arguments*, it is
somewhat inaccurate to characterize them thus.  Think of them as
armchair (though based on some experience with these matters)
sociological observations concerning *why* certain things are of
intense interest to academics at certain times.  I not, at least,
that you do not impugn the *truth* of these remarks.

-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm