I agree with your reasons. They reflect mine.

I suspect you are right. But if someone asks, I will answer.

I certainly chose this quote because I think explains quite a bit of the problem we face on the net. People “practice logic” without a sufficient philosophical background, ending up debating people for an ideological position with one continuous logical sleight of hand after another. Their arguments are never consistent, which is a sure sign of their sophistry. And as John points out, it demonstrates an immature mind who has not learned that logic is a tool that is not self-sufficient on its own and requires knowledge of the other sciences to apply its dictates properly.

Start with a false premise, and you end up with a false conclusion. Or if you start as an ideologue looking to find a defense for a given conclusion, you can find false premises which lead you to it.

“I wonder if I should have told people who John of Salisbury is.”

Probably not necessary. The interest and utility would be minimal anyway. He wrote neither the Bible nor the Catechism. His writings are ill-suited to offer up the good gotcha quote.

I wonder if I should have told people who John of Salisbury is. Perhaps Policraticus would like to say something about that ;)