Hans or Russell

During the beginning of the book, three of the four characters start by discussing about Julies Govier in regards to the letter to Alison Bridges about his sub-average grade (C-) and further into other philosophical topics such as constructivism, metaphysics, and solipsism. However, the conversation turns into an argument or debate between Russell and Hans, with Alison being the intermediate or the conversational referee. Both characters (Russell and Hans) have a solid background in philosophy but seem to have different perspectives on many of the issues discussed. Again, it is tough to distinguish who is seemly more convincing but t\in the end, Hans seemed more convincing than Russell did.

The primary reason why I found Hans more convincing is that he seems to have this aura to him, similar to a sage, and his responses were refined in relativity to Russell. Russell jumps to far more conclusions then Hans, thinking that they are in complete accordance with the topics. For example in the beginning of chapter two, Russell seems to think that they in accordance over Jules Govier’s letter of disappointment. In return, Hans disagrees with Russell, stating that he is far too quick to judge, jumping to hastily conclusions. In addition, Russell does not have as much conclusive evidence as Hans has. There seems to be two roles to this argument is that Russell would be the “rough draft” to this argument while Hans would be the “editor/proofreader”. I am not saying that Russell is false in his interpretations, he has some good points to his arguments but they lack substance. Russell is sliding down a slippery slope (an argument fallacy) and he seems to believe that his assumptions are correct, on all aspects of the playing field. Sometimes Russell does remind me of Ernst Von Glaserfeld in which, he defends what he thinks is correct but is not.

Transitioning to chapter three, starting on page sixteen, the argument shifts from ontology to constructivism. Russell states that there is such thing as an unexperienced rock, existing out of thought. He gives the example of Alison stumbling on the rock along a trail in Vermont. It is true that she does not think it into existence, but that more likely that the rock was never noticed instead of experiencing a rock. Hans questions that how can you tub your toe on a rock you have never experienced; it does not make any sense. Again, this brings us to the theory that Von Glaserfeld brewed up that we can unexperience things, such as an apple. Russell is basically making minimal sense and I feel that if Hans has more expertise in the field of philosophy even though he is an education professor and Russell is supposed to be the philosopher.

1.Is Russell committing a numerous amount of argument fallacies and if so, which ones other than a “slippery slope”?
2.Does anyone else agree that Hans is more convincing than Russell or is it the other way around, Russell is more convincing than Hans?