Some misguided notions about personal attacks

[Bonsai Nut]

What is an opinion? By its very definition it just is. Any value placed on an opinion is put there by others - NOT by the original creator. Arguing facts is one thing, arguing opinion is something else. Therefore I think it is a reasonable question to ask, "why should I accept this person's opinion over someone else's?" If you want to offer an opinion as an anonymous poster with no credentials, do not be upset if people do not place a lot of value on it. If you wish to offer an opinion that is backed by a body of work or experience - your opinion MAY mean more. However it again comes down to the eye of the beholder. I do not necessarily accept anyone's opinion at face value, especially if I do not value their experience or work. Likewise I will often look for the opinion of someone else whose work I value, regardless of what other people think )

 

[Chris Johnston]

No misguided notions at all, when one veers from the subject matter and throws out the old cop out "show me your trees" they are attacking the person, not the subject matter. Inferring that someone does not know what they are talking about based on what they have or have not shown makes no sense at all.

Debate the topic, not the person.

May I suggest reading over this?


Will

What is an opinion? By its very definition it just is. Any value placed on an opinion is put there by others - NOT by the original creator. Arguing facts is one thing, arguing opinion is something else. Therefore I think it is a reasonable question to ask, "why should I accept this person's opinion over someone else's?" If you want to offer an opinion as an anonymous poster with no credentials, do not be upset if people do not place a lot of value on it. If you wish to offer an opinion that is backed by a body of work or experience - your opinion MAY mean more. However it again comes down to the eye of the beholder. I do not necessarily accept anyone's opinion at face value, especially if I do not value their experience or work. Likewise I will often look for the opinion of someone else whose work I value, regardless of what other people think )

Nut, this is absolutely true. And no personal attack involved. Is it the tone that makes it a personal attack, or is the cry of "ad hominem" itself a red herring used to avoid the issue?

And herein lies the substance. What happens if the author of an argument is implicitly and completely in the midst of that which he argues. Does he not become part of the subject by definition? And how is can someone claim "ad hominem" fallacy if the opposite side of the debate agrees with the point being made? Ad hominem is a fallacy only if one uses the character or some belief of the debater to try to negate that point. "No, you are incorrect because you are a lying, bullying, cheating, thieving scum out only to promote yourself." Hm. I haven't heard anyone around here try to disprove an argument based on character.

So some dogs don't hunt, and providing links to wikipedia is one of them. You have to show how it's a fallacy and prove that the opposite side is attacking character to avoid dealing with the argument. Good luck.

Chris

 

[Anonymous User]

For the record, I wasn't involved in the original discussion and I wasn't called to show my trees, so I responded as an outsider. But I have been there before.




Here's the scoop, take it for what it is worth....

If I state that proper drainage is essential to healthy bonsai, this is true. I am sure one or two people might argue with this and debate it, this is fine because from such discussions information is gleaned.

If I state that cut paste is a waste of money, this is a bit more controversial and more people might argue and debate the point, this is fine because from such discussions information is gleaned.

On both subjects above, quotes, research, sources, references, and experience will be put up by both sides of the debate and information will fall like manna from heaven upon the forums.

This is what forums are great at, this is what many come here for, the intelligent discussion of ideas, techniques, and theories. This is what advances the art.



But here is the line __________________________________


All the sudden, during a debate someone says let's see your trees then. or how long have you been in bonsai, or my teacher can beat up your teacher, or such. In short, they turn to debating the person instead of the subject and all chance for intelligent discussion is lost.


So this week I become a checkbook bonsai master and instantly I become a certified expert?

Bullhockey!

Okay, so I don't buy checkbooksai, instead I buy a few paintbynumbersai, trim a bit, wire a little and presto, I am now experienced?

Horsefeathers!


As Bnut said, we all can and should judge information for ourselves, I know I do, I check sources, references, and books to verify information. I base it upon my own experiences and I find good info from babes and crap from the Internet Masters, and visa versa.


But, I'm sorry, the old cop out of changing the subject to the person is just that, a cop out. Using myself for an example, most my articles have been validated by professionals, yet I don't have a great world class creation of my own. The information is still correct and referenced by many....and that is the real test....is the info correct....not what my trees look like.

Tone itself is subjective and is open to being painted with preconceived notions, bias, and prejudice. The actual tone and intent can not be known, they are implied and should be ignored. Responses should be on topic and based on the words posted, not imagined tone.


Debate the subject, not the person.




Back to tallying score for the olympics......


Will

 

[treebeard55]

B'nut and Chris, good points. I think too often a cry of "ad hominem!" is raised here as a red herring.

Will, you seem to be saying that someone can post good information without being a master themselves, if I sifted thru your comments correctly. Agreed. But then there is more need to provide references, quotes,etc.

I think the question is one of credibility. And, like it or not, the quality of your trees, and of your work with them, does imply something about your knowledge and experience, and your knowledge and experience do have a bearing on your credibility.

Someone like Walter Pall, or Kathy Shaner, has demonstrated their knowledge (both theoretical and hands-on) by the quality of their work over many years. That gives them a credibility that I, with my own level of experience, can't match. Nor would I be offended if someone asked for more substantiation of a statement from me than from Walter!

"Show us your trees" is shorthand for "Show us some hard evidence of how much you know, so we may judge whether to trust the well-being of our trees to your advice." I personally find nothing wrong with that.

One caveat. The quality of one's trees can't be the only basis for judging how much someone knows. Other factors can be at play, too. I'm not sure how many high-quality trees Bill Valavanis could show you right now, so soon after that fire. But I still accept him as very knowledgeable!

OK, I'm done. For now.

 

[grouper52]

Let me propose the following thought experiment. Let's base it on a common motivator we can probably all relate to in our own way: Money.

A wealthy uncle died, and because you and he were very close he left you a bonsai in his will, let's say a venerable old JBP. It is worth a half-year's salary. He also left you a stipend to use to take some lessons to learn how to care for it.

The tree is extremely precious to you, not only because it is from your beloved uncle, but also because of its huge monetary value. You ask around about someone to teach you to care for the tree.

Only two people are available to give you lessons in your area, and both charge the same amount.

One is a fellow who has been practicing bonsai for over twenty years, and when you go meet him his yard is filled with incredible specimens, many of which are also large old JBPs, robust in health and beautifully styled.

The other is a guy who has three rather pathetic trees on his porch, small and sickly, and uninspired in their training. He gives as his credentials the fact that he's been active on a bonsai forum for several years and has read up on JBPs there and on several other sites as well.

Who will you choose to spend your uncle's stipend getting lessons from, and who will you trust to give the best advice on the care and styling of your uncle's precious tree?

An "appeal to authority" as the sole method of judging truth was overthrown centuries ago when Artistotle's scientific legacy was displaced by the scientific method ushered in by Francis Bacon and others. But the thought experiment above points out that common sense should not be confused with a mere appeal to authority, and it still has an important role in our daily choices concerning the credibility of those who would give us advice about things that are dear to us. Whatever people may think of themselves, if they don't post impressive trees of their own making here, then I think it's unrealistic to expect that most of us would pay their advice much mind compared to that which comes from those who do.

 

[Klytus]

I have been collecting books on the subject from Oxfam and the like,i thank my lucky stars that i never had the money to buy them when they were presented as state of the art.

It's like the literary version of 100 greatest sporting fumbles.

Many of the pictures and sentiments could be construed as hilariously rudimentary,it all depends on the company.

 

[AlainK]

Are conservative/liberal, religious/free-thinking, narrow-minded/open-minded, racist/tolerant people more prone to starting personal attacks than others?

Any statistics?

Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!

 

[TheSteve]

An "appeal to authority" as the sole method of judging truth was overthrown centuries ago when Artistotle's scientific legacy was displaced by the scientific method ushered in by Francis Bacon and others. But the thought experiment above points out that common sense should not be confused with a mere appeal to authority, and it still has an important role in our daily choices concerning the credibility of those who would give us advice about things that are dear to us. Whatever people may think of themselves, if they don't post impressive trees of their own making here, then I think it's unrealistic to expect that most of us would pay their advice much mind compared to that which comes from those who do.

Actually I believe it was the Greeks and Socrates who dismisssed authority as argumentitive proof. Along with several other arguments that we see on here every day.

Sorry but I just learned this in my sociology class today to had to bring it up. Never seen you post anything I thought I could correct before.

 

[TheSteve]

The thing is body of work will always lend credibility. The other person may not be wrong but you're going to listen to a doctor before you listen to your garbage man about a chronic headache.

 

[treebeard55]

... you're going to listen to a doctor before you listen to your garbage man about a chronic headache.

And every time my 8-year-old is sick, I thank God that her mother is a nurse!

 

[grouper52]

Actually I believe it was the Greeks and Socrates who dismisssed authority as argumentitive proof. Along with several other arguments that we see on here every day.

Sorry but I just learned this in my sociology class today to had to bring it up. Never seen you post anything I thought I could correct before.

You are right, but I am not wrong because of it. It was not the ancient Greeks who were appealing to authority, it was the scholars of the middle ages, especially in the realm of the sciences, "natural philosophy," who were still trying to base science on the thoughts and observations of Aristotle, almost two millenia old. Aristotle himself, a life long student of sciences, especially the life sciences, would have most likely been appalled by the medieval scholastic hang up on his antiquated scientific ideas.

BTW, your statements themselves would have been more credible if you were not simply appealing to the "authority" of what you were told in sociology class today, but instead went back and read and studied Plato's and Aristotle's actual works, so you could speak directly about their thoughts. But bravo for at least learning something in class!

 

[TheSteve]

Sorry philosophy is tomorrow morning. But the Greeks were done by 300 AD. After that the Catholic Church repressed any and self thinking for the next 1200 years. That's where the scientific revolution and the use of emperical proof came in.

 

[Anonymous User]

Okay, so the general consensus is in and we will build on that.

But first, how many articles do you read in life? In newspapers, in magazines? How many educational shows do you watch? How many of these authors do you believe are experts in the field concerning the subject matter? Pick up your local newspaper and find an article on the economy, on politics, on any subject matter you wish, now read the by line and google the author. Professional reporter, freelance writer? Bet you'd be hard pressed to find an expert in the field they are writing about.

Let's move up a notch and go to the Writers Market, which is an annual book listing almost all the major publishers, what they are seeking, what they pay, and how to submit your work. Of all the qualifications listed, not one is that the author must be an expert in the field.

The key is research. Given enough time I could write an article on nuclear physics, with enough research, the resulting text would either be factual and solid or it would be torn apart with real facts and debate. This is how it is done folks, that's life.


Okay, back on track....

The common thread in the excellent rebuttals posted here is that a persons trees or quality thereof determines if their words are worthy. While this has merit, it certainly is not the end all of measurements, take checkbooksai and paintbynumbersai into consideration. So to refine the rebuttal here, we would have to put in the disclaimer that the proven ability to create bonsai adds weight to a persons words, not just the ability to purchase them, unless the subject matter is buying bonsai, of course.

But wait, that can't be right, because even beginners can create trees in pots. I have many bonsai, none ready for world class shows, in fact everyone on this forum has bonsai, so are all our words just as valid?

No?

Well then that must mean that it is the length of time one has been in bonsai that adds weight to their words.

No, that can't be right either because some people have studied for years under great masters and still haven't produced trees worthy of National Exhibits, some people have been at it for 10 years, 20 years, even 30 years without ever having won a national show and recognition as a master.

Hmmm, then it must be quality of the bonsai that counts! But where is the line drawn? Who draws the line? Just claiming so yourself would not really judge quality and having members judge other members would lead to chaos and flame wars, while one internet master downplayed another's trees to keep ahead and be "the master."

So we must narrow it down, lest people like myself dare to speak about bonsai, but how?

Only people who have won national shows?

No, that rules out about 99.9 % of the membership here, there'd be no discussion at all to speak of.

Only people who have won first at club shows?

No darn it, that includes me again, can't have that.

Only people who have bonsai featured in a gallery at AoB?

Well that narrows it down, but still leaves 99% of the membership here silent.

We could have Walter or Brent, or Hans, or all of them together, make a list of who is qualified to speak here about bonsai, but that might be a short list as well and I can already hear the cries of favoritism, bias, and such from the masses.

Oh, demons hex me, what to do, what to do?

I know, let's try the tried and true method! We could let everyone speak freely and then weigh their words with good, old fashioned, intelligent, polite debate. The truth always comes out and the truth will determine who knows what and how much.

Take away the personal attacks, flames, insults, and oneupmanship, and that is exactly what every forum does already. Genius!

No need to reinvent the wheel. Debate the subject, not the person.


Will

 

[TheSteve]

Will-

I think it comes down to the person who is just reading the debate. Who's words carry more? You could wath the Discovery health channel 24 hours a day, but would you feel confident to operate on your daughter?

 

[Anonymous User]

Will-

I think it comes down to the person who is just reading the debate. Who's words carry more? You could wath the Discovery health channel 24 hours a day, but would you feel confident to operate on your daughter?

Let's see your trees then, so I know if your words are worth reading.




Will

 

[JasonG]

Having been somewhat following this thread I thought I would jump in and say a few things......

Will, you mention "checkbooksai" (for the record I think that is a stupid term, just like cookie cutter) and without a doubt most people who buy a killer tree that is very ramified and what one would think of as a "finished" tree don't know how to properly take care of them on a seasonal basis to continue to do the tree justice. We see this all too many times.....

But then there are the guys who do know how to take care of a killer tree and keep them in shape and looking healthy and proper. Look at guys like Harry, Timz, etc.... there are many that are able to do this. These guys are guys one would want to listen to in regards to taking care of killer trees. Those trees aren't cookie cutter, they are kick butt shohin and chuhin trees that are on a level that most people will never reach.

As to who to listen to and who is credible or not..... Well I will use my friends names here because they know that I mean no harm by what I am going to say..... but lets say I needed collecting advice, well I wouldn't take what Grouper52 had to say because I know he has very little experience in collecting. TheSteve, I know he has very little experience with wiring (just learning) so I wouldn't really take what he says about the correct way to apply wire very serious.... And Will, I wouldn't ask you for advice on bending a branch the size of your forearm on a 1000 year old collected tree because I know you haven't had the chance to do so. Now none of the above is meant to be disrespectful by any means, but what I wrote is true and proves a point. Everybody has their own "knack" or experience in what they can contribute to a forum. That is what makes the community good because when we are all together then we have most bases covered.

Anyone can pick up a book and read it and learn what the book tells you about the correct way to apply wire. Anyone can read that then type how to do it on a forum. BUT until you have wired many, many trees and have a 100+ hours actually putting wire on branches then you don't really have it down like the artform it was meant to be. No wires crossing, well planned paths, always thinking ahead, way ahead, proper spacing, proper wire size, etc... I would take someones advice who has actually done it over someone who has little time doing it. That doesn't make them wrong or bad at it, just inexperienced.

I do think the person's trees do play into the credibility and weight of the advice given.....if someone has sticks in pots or little experience would I take their advice? Probably not, but I would try to listen and then correct them or point out why that idea isn't going to work. But if Walter or others with good trees that I know did the work, has maintained them, or has studied it in person then sure I would take what they had to say with some more weight.

Just my 2 cents from where I sit

 

[grouper52]

Sorry philosophy is tomorrow morning. But the Greeks were done by 300 AD. After that the Catholic Church repressed any and self thinking for the next 1200 years. That's where the scientific revolution and the use of emperical proof came in.

The Greeks were "done" long before that!

BTW, a reading of some of the great Church fathers from this era might give you a less dismissive view. I'm not Catholic or even Christian, but I've found it an eye opener to go back to the writings of these great minds, rather than just accepting the standard put downs than are so much in vogue these days. I have, in fact, found that to be true of almost all the great thinkers and writers throughout history. Even concerning more modern times, I'm always amazed at the opinion people have about Darwin, for instance, who have never read Darwin's two great works, or about Freud who have never read even a small smattering of his actual works. Even if the ideas of these great beings are no longer thought to be tenable, it is a pleasure and highly instructive to go back and watch their minds at work through the observations and reasoning they preserved in their writings.

Good night to you - enjoy your philosophy in the morning!

 

[Rick Moquin]

I was going to wire a tree this morning, but I decided to go to Home Depot to buy materials to build a podium.

 

[Anonymous User]

You could make a killing selling them here.


It's a beautiful day......

 

[Tachigi]

"checkbooksai" Will pray that checksai's never go away. For the most part they drive the bonsai market place and provide an income that professionals need. Without that income AOB would be for the most part a barren waste land with view professionals displaying a gallery because they would be schlepping to a job like the rest of us.

Funny thing also...isn't "checkbooksai" for the most part the culture in Japan....seems that they are doning something right by our standards as we look to them for example.