"The Declaration of Independence Was Also a List of" Topic

Who did the navy imagine it was going to defeat with even a dozen sols? Much less six? The three likely enemies were all world-class powers whose fleets dwarfed that, right? I would guess, too, that manning those -- what, about 1000 men each? -- would have required either wages comparable to what a privateer would pay, or else a draft.

Easy to make fun of Jefferson's gunboats, but how DO you defend the US with a very limited budget and the world war raging between the great superpowers? Would ANY imaginable fleet have made a dent in Britain's or even France's?

Have either of you read the book, or any comparable publication? There are a few in print…

Not I. The list of books I haven't read runs into the millions.

How can you answer anything on this subject if you haven't read or studied anything on the subject?

'Millions'? Really?

LOL. Yes, really, millions. There are surely millions of books published; how many of them have YOU read? I HAVE read 400 or 500 US History books and a few thousand articles (as will have any PhD), and that leaves millions (on all subjects) UNREAD.

I understand being a hedgehog, I'm one myself, but I am the fox, too, a PhD is required to be (especially when teaching survey courses and now constructing curricula for same). You seem to be a hedgehog clinging not to one big idea but to a small one. or in the case of the militia, an incorrect one.

link

"a fox knows many things, but a hedgehog knows one big thing"

You seem to be a hedgehog clinging not to one big idea but to a small one. or in the case of the militia, an incorrect one.

From Historians' Fallacies-Towards a Logic of Historic Thought by David Hackett Fischer, 290-291:

'The fallacy of argument ad hominem occurs in many different forms, all of which serve to shift attention from the argument to the arguer. Among its more common varieties are, first, the abusive ad hominem, which directly denounces an opponent. The classic example, perhaps apocryphal, is a note passed from one desperate lawyer to another: 'No case; abuse plaintiff's attorney.''

and you don't understand what an ad hominem is.

Then perhaps you could explain it?

Have you read Fischer's book? It is an excellent reference and very helpful in the writing of history.

Ad hominem is a fallacy that the truth of a proposition depends on who said it. Hitler was an environmentalist; therefore environmentalism is Nazi. That is illogical, a fallacy, an error in reasoning, because the moral character of a speaker is irrelevant on a question of fact. (It would NOT be a fallacy to question Hitler's views on moral issues, as his actions have discredited him (to put it mildly!)

The opposite fallacy is the appeal to authority: because I admire this person, or agree with him, the fact that he says something makes it true.

I have read some of Fischer's books but not that one. But I had an excellent semester-long course in logic, my freshman year at Rice.

I posted a definition of ad hominem for the forum. There are actually four types of ad hominem fallacies according to Fischer.

I posted the first version.

The second is circumstantial: 'It consists in a suggestion that an opponent's argument is merely a reflection of his interest.'

The third are associative ad hominem arguments. It attempts 'to undercut an opponent by reference to the company he keeps.'

The fourth type are in the 'form of tu quoque ('you too'), in which it is suggested that an opponent has sometimes held the view which he now opposes, or that he has adopted the practice which he now condemns, or his argument applies to himself as well as to his opponent.'

Perhaps now you may have an understanding of 'ad hominem.' On the forums, the first one is the fallacy most used, unfortunately.

…how many of them have YOU read?

Many more than the 500 you mentioned. My personal library numbers many more than 500 volumes, and I have downloaded hundreds from Google Books which is very useful.

Please don't begin a 'my dog is bigger than your dog' 'discussion.'

A personal insult is not in and of itself ad hominem. If someone were to say "John McBride is arrogant and condescending in discussions of the Revolution" that is either opinion or fact (probably fact) and is not ad hominem.

IF one were to say "BECAUSE McBride is a condescending jerk his arguments about the Revolution are worthless" that IS fallacious, in fact ad hominem, because McBride's character or "style" has NO bearing on the validity of his arguments.

If one were to say "McBride is a PhD who has read and studied and taught this topic for fifty years; therefore he can speak with some authority" that is a fact. However, if one were to say "BECAUSE McBride is an expert on this topic therefore we should accept uncritically whatever he says about it" is fallacious, an appeal to authority. Experts still have to show their work.

It is good to avoid personal insults because of rules of collegiality and of elementary politeness. But being rude or insulting is not per se fallacious. Someone may be a jerk and also CORRECT. Someone may be an expert and also WRONG. To deny those two propositions is to commit the fallacies of ad hominem and of appeal to authority.