COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002
C00012 ENDMK
C⊗;

	    TECHNOLOGY AND IDEOLOGY - AD HOMINEM REMARKS


	For those who know even less Latin than I do, an ad hominem
argument is aimed at the man rather than his case.  Ad hominem arguments
are traditionally regarded as bad since attacking a person does not
refute his position.  However, they have always been popular.  Marxists
say, "You disagree with me, because you are a lackey of the bourgeoisie,"
psychoanalysts say, "You disagree with me, because you have a neurotic
block", and J. K. Galbraith sometimes says, "They disagree with me,
because their tastes have been formed by advertising."  A case that
relies entirely on ad hominem arguments should be dismissed without
further thought, because it is an appeal to your dislikes rather than to
your reason. 

	I don't think ad hominem remarks can be completely excluded from
discussions of political and social topics, because it is legitimate to
show that other parties to a discussion are not disinterested if this is
true.  On the other hand, it is best to have a case for one's own views
so strong that it doesn't need that kind of support, since showing one's
adversary to have a bias does not prove that he is wrong.

	In this book so far, I believe I have managed to avoid ad
hominem remarks almost completely, but now I would like to try to
account for anti-technological views so that the reader who is inclined
to such views for non-rational reasons will be able to avoid them and so
that he will be able to detect these irrationalities in others. 

	Anti-technological and anti-modern views have a long history. 


	1. The liberal arts fraud. 

	2. Lawyers and two sides to every question. 

	3. Manipulation of guilt and its conversion into hate. 

	4. Those who took the easy  way in college wish to  denigrate
their betters. 

	5. Snobs and effete snobs. 

	6. Usually a cynical  view of the motives of  some group will
dominate a conversation  compared to a favorable view.  If a listener
is offended by the view, he is more likely to counterattack against a
rival group  than to  defend the  group attacked.   This  response is
especially prevalent among young people and working class people.  So
far as I know, this is not a recent phenomenon. 

	7. Fashionable pessimism and archaism dates back  at least to
the eighteenth century.   Voltaire (I think) has dialogues on whether
the ancients were  better than  moderns.   As far  as I  can see  the
arguments  that  the  world  is  deteriorating  had  then  a  similar
psychological  basis to  the present  ones, although  I must  admit I
can't specify what this basis is. 

	9. The main source of human unhappiness is the shortness of life.



	There is this thing that calls itself the "public policy
community", and sometimes it seems to me to be too big for its
boots.  It seems to set no limits on its right to plan other
people's lives.  Of course, it sees that some plans may encounter
resistance to their execution, but if this resistance can be overcome
by "public education" and "suitable incentives", then it is regarded
similarly to a resistant layer of rock.  If the plan involves
denying the public something, for its own good of course, by
preventing it from being produced, then probably there will be
no resistance.

	Consider CB radio.  It arrived in the U.S. without much
notice by the then nascent public policy community.  It now
has too many users to be eliminated by bureaucratic fiat, so
it suffers only occasional sneers from the community.  In Britain,
however, there has never been legal CB and the public policy
community has evidently decided that CB is a bad idea.  Unfortunately
for them, many thousands of CB radios have been imported from
the U.S. and are in illegal use, and there is strong pressure for
the legalization of CB.

	CB is a mixed case, because it involves the use of a public
resource - namely the airways.





	I  think  that  current  debate  on  social  issues  is  less
effective at getting at the truth than it would be if  certain  rules
of intellectual honesty were adopted by writers, expected by readers,
and enforced by editors.  As a partial  step  in  this  direction,  I
advocate  and promise to use in my own writing the following order of
presentation:

	1. The view that the writer is putting forward.

	2. The reasons for supporting this view.

	3. A discussion of other views on the subject.

	4.  Ad hominem remarks that account for other views according
to the interests or psychology of the writer.

	This permits the reader to know what is being proposed before
hearing the reasons; he may agree for reasons of his own.  Ad hominem
remarks should be last because they often come to pointing out to the
reader that he and the writer have common enemies and thus are  often
just  appeals  to  prejudice.  The reasons why the writer's views are
true should be separated from reasons  why  other  views  are  false.
Otherwise,  the  reader is often asked to accept the writer's views on
the basis of a refutation of other peoples' views.  This is dangerous
because  either the other person's views may be incorrectly presented
or they and the view advocated may not exhaust the possibilities.

	I don't know  any  explicit  discussions  of  what  order  of
presentation  is most conducive to honest writing, but I can make the
following observations:

	1. Writing in the physical and  biological  sciences  usually
follows  the order I advocate.  In fact, ad hominem remarks are often
completely excluded.

BUT SUCH WRITING MAY NOT BE INTERESTING TO READ.  IN THESE ESSAYS YOU
DO not ALWAYS FOLLOW THIS ORDER.  STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ORDER CAN
BE BORING.

THE ORDER ISN'T APPROPRIATE IF THE INTENT OF THE ESSAY IS MAINLY
CRITICAL.