Actually Rich ad hominem attacks are fallacies related to arguments, not just any statement.

Thanks. Unfortunately the .2 deduction stands. It was a judgement call.

Don’t understand your beef. There are better and worse tennis players, pianists, writers, artists, scientists - not everyone has the same degree of skill in thinking and writing, and understanding of philosophy. — Wayfarer

It was stated categorically that it is obvious that some people think better than others, and that this forum shows it.

That makes absolutely no sense.

We are talking about an abstraction, thinking, not about some specific, concrete event like someone swinging a golf club.

Here is an illustration: the statement "Thomas Kuhn is a better thinker than Noam Chomsky" makes no sense without any criteria. Based on what criteria? The number of books published? Pedigree--the number of later public intellectuals mentored/influenced? Nobel prizes? Solving a problem that had stumped intellectuals for 1,000 years versus one that had done so for only 200 years?

No two people can seem to agree on what demarcates science and non-science, yet it is obvious that some people are better scientists than others?

It does not matter if we are talking about tennis, the piano, writing, science or philosophy, it depends on the goals/objectives of the person/people carrying out the activity. Unless there are universally agreed upon goals/objectives for an activity, it makes no sense to state categorically that some people are better at that activity than others. It makes even less sense when we are talking about something abstract such as "thinking".

Horses for courses. Sharks think better than humans when it comes to doing the calculations for swimming and eating fish in the ocean.
But they do not know how to start a computer — charleton

That just tells us that sharks and humans know different things, not that anybody thinks better than anybody else.

Two humans. One quickly finds the answer to a problem (such as a maths one) whose solution is irrefutable; the other never finds the solution. — charleton

The statement was that some people think better, not that some people think faster.

The same pair of people being quizzed on a matter of emotional intelligence the result might find the maths failure can find the solution whilst the maths whizz fails even to understand the emotional problem. — charleton

How does any of that show that anybody is a "better thinker" than anybody else?

So thinking well in philosophy requires the ability to analyze and form good arguments, this, it seems to me, is the backbone of philosophy. — Sam26

That sounds to me like saying philosophy is basically nothing more than the skills developed in a logic textbook or on a debate team.

I beg to differ. Philosophy is about finding wisdom. Logic and arguments are part of that journey, but to characterize philosophy as the craft of constructing arguments is focusing like a laser on one tree and being oblivious to the vast forest that it is part of.

I didn't say that was all there was to philosophy, but that it's a very important part of philosophy.

I didn't say that was all there was to philosophy, but that it's a very important part of philosophy. — Sam26

You said that it is the "backbone of philosophy".

Yes, I believe it is the backbone of philosophy, but knowledge can be gained apart from using just logic. I say argument is the backbone because one of the key features of philosophy is analyzing beliefs that are put forward as arguments. The goal is truth, and yes the wisdom you gain from discovery, but you have to do it well to gain wisdom. One doesn't gain wisdom apart from gaining knowledge.

Yes, I believe it is the backbone of philosophy, but knowledge can be gained apart from using just logic. — Sam26

Knowledge can be gained without using any logic at all.

I do not have to know how to construct a valid deductive argument to gain knowledge. I do not have to have any familiarity with concepts like premise or conclusion to gain knowledge.

Looking at the clock on this computer that I am using I see that it is 11:55 p.m. eastern time. Knowledge gained. No arguments constructed or analyzed. No rules of logic needed.

I say argument is the backbone because one of the key features of philosophy is analyzing beliefs that are put forward as arguments — Sam26

I thought that people construct arguments to support the truth of statements, not to justify what is going on in their minds (beliefs, thoughts, etc.).

The goal is truth, and yes the wisdom you gain from discovery, but you have to do it well to gain wisdom — Sam26

Hogwash.

Goals and objectives vary from person to person. For some people their goal might be enjoyment, and any truth or wisdom gained in the process is just a bonus.

You don't have to do it "well". You have to do it "well enough" to meet your goals/objectives.

Unless, of course, there is some universal standard of "well". Again, nobody in this thread is telling us what that universal standard is.

One doesn't gain wisdom apart from gaining knowledge. — Sam26

And one can gain knowledge without formal logic.

Or are all of the people in the world who are never introduced to concepts like premise, conclusion, syllogism, informal fallacy, modus ponens, etc. doomed to lives with no knowledge and no wisdom?

Who sets the standard? Who picks the criteria? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

So, you've already made your mind up, and you're going to dismiss any answer given which differs from your own? You appear to have already set the standard and picked the criteria. This discussion has the feeling of someone enticing others to grasp at something which has been placed out of reach by that very someone.

No one thinks any better than anyone else, in your world, because you won't allow it.

I think better than you since you have taken what I have said and missed the point, despite me making it as simple as possible.

Now tell us what you think "better" is and I'll show you another example.