[DanielBMarkham]

Which has no bearing on the validity of this particular piece, right? It's just a blanket statement about the source. You would take this particular piece and argue it on its merits, right? Not imply that because the publication has one pattern or another, the reasoning (ugh) is somehow tainted.

I just want to make sure that you are simply making an observation, and not trying to impeach the article by casting aspersions on the source.

[msg]

Pointing out a pattern of dogmatic reasoning unmoved by evidence to the contrary is hardly an ad hominem. It is a way of warning that this article adds no information, if you are already acquainted with the dogma. Also, if you believe that you have a convincing argument against the dogma, it will probably apply to this article.

In a similar fashion, if I tell you that an article recounts the same old many-worlds hypothesis, and you are acquainted with the many-worlds hypothesis, you may skip the article.

[DanielBMarkham]

In a similar fashion, if I tell you that an article recounts the same old many-worlds hypothesis, and you are acquainted with the many-worlds hypothesis, you may skip the article.

How about the case in which I am mistaken, and have never been exposed to a many-worlds argument that was well reasoned and persuasive?

I don't know if I would want to listen to an argument that claimed, for instance, that spirits lived in rocks. But if I were part of a community which found such an article interesting, I would find it more useful in terms of understanding both the posters and the cultural nature of the submission to take the argument on face value and submit a few kindly-worded criticisms. After all, maybe the other guy has never heard a clear, reasoned, and persuasive argument either, right?

[msg]

I think we are talking about two different kinds of arguments. I think the Reason article is more expository than polemical, which is a major part of my problem with it.

Suppose I tell you instead at the top of my article that the following starts from the premise that rocks are alive. Then I proceed to argue that you should destroy your computer and throw it into the ocean to preserve the rights of the minerals therein. The logic is sound and it's written in a witty, convincing style.

Sure, that's only one article, and it sounds pretty novel. Now imagine there is a Rocks First! organization that puts out pamphlets, magazines, books, and press releases on rock rights and the mineral personhood amendment, and reinterprets recent history in terms of the silent rock genocides that humans have perpetrated against their inert brethren. You can be pretty sure of the position before you read the material; it is derived from their fundamental beliefs.

In such a case, an argument at the core of the fundamental beliefs might sway an organi-centrist to become rock-conscious, but not peripheral stuff about a recent amendment defining marriage as between a human and a human.

The Reason article, I think, is just what you would expect someone to say who believed dogmatically in the power of the free market. It doesn't take opposing viewpoints into account on market deregulation, nor does it attempt to address the core issues that convince them this is the proper interpretation of the Clinton years. It leaves a lot of important questions unmentioned and unanswered.

[DanielBMarkham]

a pattern of dogmatic reasoning unmoved by evidence to the contrary

Which was not the claim that was made, right?