[Sca-cooks] Fun and ignorance - The Response

[Martin G. Diehl]

Signora Apollonia Margherita degli Albizzi wrote:
>
> Here are the thought of the editor of the page...

... and I have inserted another way to analyze her response ...

Please NOTE that my comments here are simply my initial analysis of
the editor's response to Apollonia merely to expose the wide use of
false rhetoric in that response.

Please keep in mind that the study of Rhetoric (reasoning, discourse,
true and false arguments), ... was a required course of study in the
Middle Ages.  ... but, sadly, not emphasized nearly enough in the
current era.

... some links

	http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/silva.htm
	http://intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm
	http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/Logic101a.htm

> Hi Sarah~
>
> Your commentary first of all was terribly unkind.

Appeal to pity.

> Second- you offer no validity for your comments such as a PHD in
> cultural study for example.  Which I suspect you are not as if you
> were- you would first of all know that although N. Culpepper was
> notorious in his day- that was the case only in particular realms
> and not the whole of the medieval era GLOBALLY.

Ad Hominem attack against Apollonia

Misleading response since Culpepper is a Renaissance source not Medieval.

> I can source every point I made by respected herbalists- and also-
> have well known and respected herbalists who will corroborate that
> the presentation given is valid in context and in broad view- which
> the article was written as- in addition to my own studies in
> antiquarian herbalism.

Anonymous Authority -- Unsubstantiated claim since no sources were cited.
Appeal to Authority -- BTW, she didn't offer any credentials -- neither
her own, nor those of her unnamed "respected herbalists".

> Everyone who has bothered to study herbalism is also aware that much
> of Culpepper's information is erroneous to modern standards - and was
> also disputed by his contemporaries, as well as by some noted
> herbalists later to his day but still historical to us in the 21st
> century...

Ad Hominem Attack
False premise -- after all, it is possible to study herbalism without
knowing about Culpepper.

> Thirdly- the article was not intended as in-depth treatise.

Cop-out.

> Fourthly- the article was tying in the impact of the religious
> mindset in broad terms.

Off topic non sequitor ... or ... did we misunderstand:  maybe the
subject/topic of her web page was actually about religion in the Middle
Ages and we did not have the wit to recognize her actual point.

> Lastly- clearly you did not read the article as it was intended or
> in context.

Appeal to Ridicule (Shifting blame onto the reader)

> in no way did I state herbalism was NOT a fundamental part of practical
> life- I was addressing one small area of it in very brief terms.

Contradiction of her own words -- quoting from her *first paragraph*:

> During the dark ages the practice of using herbs for medicine,
> beauty, and household maintainence was a practice generally employed
> only by monastery monks and "herbalists"; it was not an accepted part
> of the medical mainstream.

BTW, this is an implied appeal to authority -- here, she is suggesting
that the University trained doctors were the only ones who practiced
healing arts.  That trend did become stronger at the time of
Hildegard von Bingen, but would not apply to earlier periods.

> I suggest YOU take a deeper look at your own studies- and also at
> your unbelievably pompous attitude.

Ad Hominem attack

> I correspond with Doctorates in ancient studies from all over the
> world- none of whom would EVER make such clearly unkind and cruel
> remarks.

Appeal to Authority
Anonymous Authority

> Suggestions for improvement are always welcome- however, your very
> uncouth approach only serves to discredit any commentary you may make-

Discredit the prior message while not giving us any way to judge the
validity of the editor's claim.  e.g., just saying that something in
the article was incorrect might have been enough to elicit her
"I have to defend myself against this unjustified attack" response.

> and, do NOT email me ever again.

Rejecting any discussion.

> Best wishes-

Inconsistent

> Editor- Alternative-Beauty.com

Additional side note ... I suggest that we make Google an honorary SCAdian,
it had about 1,000,000 references to "Rhetoric"; 37,100 to Hildegard, ...

... and to put this back on topic, all of the above is food for thought.

--
Martin G. Diehl