Patrick's case: you guys mostly aren't acceptable!
Sep 24, 2007 at 12:22 AM Post #196 of 583
Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I´m sorry, but your talking about waves and other wave related things in the output DC suggested your background in electronics is pretty "rusty" to say the least.


The idea of DC is just a concept. you always have some fluctuations no matter what, which means there are always some harmonic components in the DC.

my analog skill is quite 'rusty' compared to when I graduated; I mean rusty as in I can no longer calculate what I need to calculate on paper, but the concepts are still there and I still remember how to run SPICE
wink.gif


Not to direct this toward you, but to challenge/to impeach a person's credibility and credential is an effective way to disqualify the statements made by that person.

So in your case, all I am trying to do is to show that a person with programming background, granted have taken a few circuit classes, do not possess the knowledge to intelligently talk about issues that's fairly advanced in the realm of electrical engineering/analog circuit design.
 
Sep 24, 2007 at 12:31 AM Post #197 of 583
Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif
my analog skill is quite 'rusty' compared to when I graduated;


No kidding...
wink.gif


Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif
do not possess the knowledge to intelligently talk about issues that's fairly advanced in the realm of electrical engineering/analog circuit design.


And you do think you posses such knowledge? Hmm... And while you exercise all your (also rusty) rhetorical tactics, you have indeed failed to attack the essense of the analogy.

It's obvious where your argumentation is heading with ad hominem + avoiding to talk about the issues at stake, so I´m moving my attention to more worthy arguers and forum members.
 
Sep 24, 2007 at 12:33 AM Post #198 of 583
Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif
No kidding...
wink.gif


And with all your (also rusty) rhetorical tactics, you have indeed failed to attack the essense of the analogy.


now you are just cherry picking your arguments. if you gaze over a crowd of people you can always pick out your friend.
 
Sep 24, 2007 at 12:40 AM Post #199 of 583
Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Not to direct this toward you, but to challenge/to impeach a person's credibility and credential is an effective way to disqualify the statements made by that person.

So in your case, all I am trying to do is to show that a person with programming background, granted have taken several circuit classes, do not possess the knowledge to intelligently talk about issues that's fairly advanced in the realm of electrical engineering/analog circuit design.


This is also a logical fallacy called ad hominem argument, you have defined it almost perfectly, it is an error because it proposes that referring to the personal characteristics of someone that makes a claim is sufficient for demonstrating that the claim itself is invalid.

It has no merit other than its rhetorical effect. It is only an effective method of argumentation when people don't know better and allow their emotions to dictate their judgments.
 
Sep 24, 2007 at 12:46 AM Post #200 of 583
Quote:

Originally Posted by fwojciec /img/forum/go_quote.gif
This is also a logical fallacy called ad hominem argument, you have defined it almost perfectly, it is an error because it proposes that referring to the personal characteristics of someone that makes a claim is sufficient for demonstrating that the claim itself is invalid.


x2

Now I will sound like exercising ad hominem against Cheesebert, but not the case, just a general comment.

Depth and breadth in technical knowledge are necessary, but not sufficient to make up a good scientist. It´s truly sad that so many "technical" people have such poor argumentative and methodological background.

Even without technical knowledge you can have intelligent arguments and conversations, because good arguments help people share and refine their knowledge. It´s without a minimum of argumentative skills that you really can´t have intelligent conversations.
 
Sep 24, 2007 at 12:46 AM Post #201 of 583
Quote:

Originally Posted by fwojciec /img/forum/go_quote.gif
This is also a logical fallacy called ad hominem argument, you have defined it almost perfectly, it is an error because it proposes that referring to the personal characteristics of someone that makes a claim is sufficient for demonstrating that the claim itself is invalid.

It has no merit other than its rhetorical effect. It is only an effective method of argumentation when people don't know better and allow their emotions to dictate their judgments.


so with that said, how do you counter a person's argument when the person is not knowledgeable, or not sufficient knowledgeable about the topic he is arguing. What I said is not quite ad hominem, because his knowledge is the key to the arguments he makes; and any lacking of a specific knowledge disqualifies the person to make such an argument.
 
Sep 24, 2007 at 12:54 AM Post #202 of 583
Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif
so with that said, how do you counter a person's argument when the person is not knowledgeable, or not sufficient knowledgeable about the topic he is arguing.


You address the argument, and not the person making the argument.
 
Sep 24, 2007 at 1:04 AM Post #203 of 583
Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif
so with that said, how do you counter a person's argument when the person is not knowledgeable, or not sufficient knowledgeable about the topic he is arguing. What I said is not quite ad hominem, because his knowledge is the key to the arguments he makes; and any lacking of a specific knowledge disqualifies the person to make such an argument.


One should always address the claim itself not the character of the person who makes it. If the person is indeed ignorant it should be easy to demonstrate that their claims (in themselves) don't make a whole lot of sense, are somehow inconsistent. In either case we can't simply assume that they are incompetent - and thus wrong.
 
Sep 24, 2007 at 1:15 AM Post #204 of 583
Quote:

Originally Posted by fwojciec /img/forum/go_quote.gif
One should always address the claim itself not the character of the person who makes it. If the person is indeed ignorant it should be easy to demonstrate that their claims (in themselves) don't make a whole lot of sense, are somehow inconsistent. In either case we can't simply assume that they are incompetent - and thus wrong.


not in character (most of headfi are good, smart, and caring people), but in the credentials from which one draws her arguments, unless what you are saying is credential or knowledge is irrelevant in our arguments.
 
Sep 24, 2007 at 1:16 AM Post #205 of 583
Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif
so with that said, how do you counter a person's argument when the person is not knowledgeable, or not sufficient knowledgeable about the topic he is arguing.


Will rephrase a statement I made earlier; will now say that it's narrowmindedness, self delusional and patronizing attitudes, and lack of a minimum of argumentative skills that prevent people from having intelligent conversations.
 
Sep 24, 2007 at 1:18 AM Post #206 of 583
Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif
You address the argument, and not the person making the argument.


I didn't want to take the time to draw the proper analogies and make the proper distinctions between EE and CS.
 
Sep 24, 2007 at 1:23 AM Post #207 of 583
Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Will rephrase a statement I made earlier; will now say that it's narrowmindedness, self delusional and patronizing attitudes, and lack of a minimum of argumentative skills that prevent people from having intelligent conversations.


I don't agree. I think its valid to impeach the person making the arguments.
 
Sep 24, 2007 at 1:24 AM Post #208 of 583
Quote:

I didn't want to take the time to draw the proper analogies and make the proper distinctions between EE and CS.


You're still completely missing the point. Address the substance of his arguments, and not his credentials.
 
Sep 24, 2007 at 1:31 AM Post #209 of 583
Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I think its valid to impeach the person making the arguments.


While you claim that I have no knowledge of electronics to support my analogy, your own electronics statements exude slopinness, and your ignorance on basic argumentation gets the more baffling with every word you submit.

The fact that you resort to attacking the person can only show your utter inability to pinpoint what's wrong with the statements in the argument you are trying to attack.
 
Sep 24, 2007 at 1:32 AM Post #210 of 583
Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif
You're still completely missing the point. Address the substance of his arguments, and not his credentials.


I certanly did, if you just go back several pages. I laid out a path that distinguishes the analogies the opponent made from several points: 1)difference between electron and water 2) difference between wave and non-wave (water vs electrical energy), 3) difference between DC and steam, 4) difference between the control system in AC-DC vs boiler, and 5) difference in the methods one would use to approach such problem.

It is my opinion that these differences effectively voids the analogies between the AC-DC system and the boiler.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top