5 ms·

It has been a long time since I have read this one and it is a very good description of the forms of disagreement. I do think that PG gives slightly too little

It has been a long time since I have read this one and it is a very good description of the forms of disagreement. I do think that PG gives slightly too little weight to ad hominem attacks though. It is true they may be no better than name calling, but they can be highly informative and relevant too. I know he says they can carry some weight, but even there I do not think he gives at least the right kind of ad hominem attack its due. For instance, in a technical field it can often be very difficult to understand much less evaluate a fully reasoned argument. In this case, to a laymen reader saying (truthfully of course) "The author of this piece has been shown to commit scientific fraud" may be more effective than trying to go through the entire argument in detail. Similarly with say financial advice being able to truthfully say "The author has been involved in con games in the past" can be more persuasive (when true!) than trying to analyze his latest claims. Even pointing out something like "This man's PHD is in <nonrelevant field>, not <relevant field>." can add value to a discussion. Of course it does not invalidate the original argument from the original author, but it does point out the readers that they should read it carefully and not give limited weight to the author's authority. This is especially true since it can be easier in some technical fields to bring up evidence that sounds good superficially but that an expert knows is false than it is justify the truth. This is because understanding the truth often requires a detailed technical grounding already whereas the pseudoscience does not.

elblanco 17y ago
I once had a discussion about this topic with a colleague. >For instance, in a technical field it can often be very difficult to understand much less evaluate a fully reasoned argument. I think at the time I had fluffed a response to the question this answers which is "well how do I know that xyz guy really knows his stuff and isn't just a so-called-expert in his field, why should I believe him?". But this sums it up nicely, it can take decades to learn enough about a field to understand the arguments properly.

elblanco 17y ago

I once had a discussion about this topic with a colleague. >For instance, in a technical field it can often be very difficult to understand much less evaluate a fully reasoned argument. I think at the time I had fluffed a response to the question this answers which is "well how do I know that xyz guy really knows his stuff and isn't just a so-called-expert in his field, why should I believe him?". But this sums it up nicely, it can take decades to learn enough about a field to understand the arguments properly.