[ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures

[BillK]

Encyclopedia Britannica
<http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/fallacies.html>
quoting from  Peter A. Angeles Dictionary of Philosophy-- published by
Barnes and Noble, copyright 1981
says:

6. Fallacy of argumentum ad personam (appeal to personal interest).
Arguing by appealing to the personal likes (preferences, prejudices,
predispositions, etc.) of others in order to have an argument
accepted.
---------------------

This is quite like her definition, without the misrepresentation bit.

This definition also appears on this *huge* list of fallacies
<http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/List_of_fallacy_pages>



I think the differences between authorities arises from the
interpretation of the 'personam' word.
Does it apply 'the person' or to 'the personal likes, prejudices, etc
of the person'.

Bruce Thompson's Fallacies Page says
<http://www.cuyamaca.edu/brucethompson/Fallacies/intro_fallacies.asp>
This website presents my attempt to make sense of the bewildering
subject of bad reasoning. Many philosophers have attempted to name and
classify types of fallacies, but no list or classification scheme has
so far managed to be comprehensive. This list is also incomplete. In
fact, I believe any list of fallacies must necessarily be a
work-in-progress, since the use of fallacious reasoning is itself
constantly changing. The fallacies that were well-known to the ancient
Greeks and Romans were the fallacies used by politicians and orators.
We still have politicians and orators today, so those fallacies are
still with us; but we also have to keep track of fallacies used by
advertisers and the news media. With the advance of science we have
had to keep up on the fallacies involved in scientific (and
pseudo-scientific) reasoning. As new public institutions emerge, no
doubt new forms of fallacious reasoning will arise with them. We
logicians need to stay alert.

ON THE NAMING OF FALLACIES

Several of the fallacies on this website do not appear on other lists
for the simple reason that I named them myself. In some cases I was
attempting to name a fallacy that had been described (but left
unnamed) by other writers; in other cases I was attempting to describe
and label a fallacy that I had observed in use, but could not fit into
an existing slot.
--------------------


So the naming of fallacies is not an exact science.
Some will be called different names by different logicians.
If we refer to an obscure fallacy, it is probably best to also quote
our understanding of what it is.  :)


BillK