Where is the love in Narnia?

Bree wrote:
> You've done some serious thought and collecting of evidence here.
>
> Now I suggest you research Lewis's attitude toward 'ad hominem' attacks,
> and what he called 'Bulverizing.'
>
>
>
> Bree

I've seen the article, but Bulverizing doesn't mean "to criticize
someone for the content of their speech. It's basically a fancy
Lewisian name for the ad hominem circumstantial fallacy.

Now, if you meant to say that you were Bulverizing me, then I don't
think you've gone quite that far (you don't know enough *about* my
circumstances to employ a circumstantial fallacy, for one thing), but
you are being more than a tad evasive. I've been quite specific about
my reasons for dismissing Pullmans' views, and given quotes in which I
believe he discredits himself. I've told you what I think are the bad
things, but you've told me none of the good things. Your whole defense
of him is based on a (extremely vague) criticism of me. I don't mind,
but honestly, if that's the best argument that can be made on behalf of
the guy, doesn't that tell you something about him?

Bree (bree@bree.com) wrote:

> Now I suggest you research Lewis's attitude toward 'ad hominem'
> attacks, and what he called 'Bulverizing.'

Speaking of which, there must be a more formal name for the logical
fallacy he referred to as "Bulverism."

For those who don't know, the fallacy says explaining the reason why a
person believes something is the same as refuting that belief. In it's
grossest form it's "You just say that because you're a woman." But
subtler forms exist, e.g. "You believe in Christ because you're afraid
of going to hell."

--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet