There's that quote of disputed origin that goes "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
The author of this article would like the reader to draw the conclusion that the Adams camp responded with "aggressive viciousness precisely because they cannot withstand scrutiny."
The author could be right, could be wrong, responding with "aggressive viciousness" doesn't really tell you anything about how well someone could support their position, it really only tells you that the person didn't and instead resorted to "aggressive viciousness."
Now we could infer that if you have good reasons for your positions you need not resort to "aggressive viciousness" and could instead use less aggressive non-vicious reasoning to support your position. Is that inference valid? I don't know, I don't particularly have a dog in the fight.
If I call your mom an idiot and you say you'll knock my block off for doing so, I could rightly say you responded with "aggressive viciousness." That doesn't really bolster my claim that your mom is an idiot nor does it imply that you could not support with evidence the case that your mom is not an idiot. The analogy here falls a bit flat because something like "your mom is an idiot" is rather inflammatory and so a strong visceral reaction makes sense in that context, where in the drawn out academic setting that is referenced in the post there would be ample time to make a calm reasoned case.
So should you draw the inference the author wants? That the actions outlined are "aggressive viciousness" and that they are that way because the "firmaments [...] cannot withstand scrutiny." That's up to you. Does it follow from a purely logical set of reasoning, not really, which to the author's credit they readily admit by labeling this section "Now for conjecture:"
The author of this article would like the reader to draw the conclusion that the Adams camp responded with "aggressive viciousness precisely because they cannot withstand scrutiny."
The author could be right, could be wrong, responding with "aggressive viciousness" doesn't really tell you anything about how well someone could support their position, it really only tells you that the person didn't and instead resorted to "aggressive viciousness."
Now we could infer that if you have good reasons for your positions you need not resort to "aggressive viciousness" and could instead use less aggressive non-vicious reasoning to support your position. Is that inference valid? I don't know, I don't particularly have a dog in the fight.
If I call your mom an idiot and you say you'll knock my block off for doing so, I could rightly say you responded with "aggressive viciousness." That doesn't really bolster my claim that your mom is an idiot nor does it imply that you could not support with evidence the case that your mom is not an idiot. The analogy here falls a bit flat because something like "your mom is an idiot" is rather inflammatory and so a strong visceral reaction makes sense in that context, where in the drawn out academic setting that is referenced in the post there would be ample time to make a calm reasoned case.
So should you draw the inference the author wants? That the actions outlined are "aggressive viciousness" and that they are that way because the "firmaments [...] cannot withstand scrutiny." That's up to you. Does it follow from a purely logical set of reasoning, not really, which to the author's credit they readily admit by labeling this section "Now for conjecture:"