4 ms·

Errata? "Recently Paul Graham wrote an article about the merits of logical argument." Is March of 2008 recently? Shouldn't it be: "In 2008 Paul Graham wrote an

by csmeder 17y ago

Errata? "Recently Paul Graham wrote an article about the merits of logical argument." Is March of 2008 recently? Shouldn't it be: "In 2008 Paul Graham wrote an article about the merits of logical argument."

KirinDave 17y ago
Not only does he get this wrong, but in general he seemed to not understand what Ad Hominem is. He mentions several examples of mean people getting hits and nice people (presumably the author is nice? I will be charitable) being overlooked. He mentions Zero Punctuation, which is a deliberately aggressive but generally insightful video game reviewer. In other words, he lauds forceful language and linkbaiting but doesn't actually give any examples of people engaging in Ad Hominem. The article is, at the very least, poorly researched.
- lionhearted 17y ago
  This is spot on: > Not only does he get this wrong, but in general he seemed to not understand what Ad Hominem is. For instance: > He mentions Zero Punctuation, which is a deliberately aggressive but generally insightful video game reviewer. The ZP reviewer fellow, very entertaining, mentions the flaws of something - bad pace, unoriginal story, repetitive gameplay - but that's NOT ad hominem. Saying, "The New Mario Brothers isn't very innovative" isn't ad hominem. Saying, "The New Mario Brothers is a boring suckfest" also isn't ad hominem. Ad hominem is, "Mario Brothers? Why even bother playing it? Nintendo couldn't make a good game to save their life." I think the author is saying that you can disagree, but he doesn't exactly know what ad hominem is. Ad hominem would be saying, "Look, he's a Christian. No way his chemistry research could be any good." --> Attacks the person, not their argument/viewpoint/science/work. Sometimes it's valid, but very rarely, and most of the time you'd be better off just refuting their points instead of slinging mud at them as a person.
  - bitdiddle 17y ago
    Exactly, there's another form of it also that I find equally off putting, .eg. "well every boolean algebra must be isomorphic to a field of sets because Marshall Stone thinks so.....". In this case it's true but the argument is hardly convincing.
    - KirinDave 17y ago
      That's called "Argument from Authority" (latin: argumentum ad verecundiam). It's not exactly isomorphic to the Ad Hominem fallacy, but it's close.
kscaldef 17y ago
I think he was misled by the fact that the essay was reposted to HN a day or two ago. Or, maybe he simply takes a longer view than the average internet poo slinger :-).

by csmeder 17y ago

KirinDave 17y ago

Not only does he get this wrong, but in general he seemed to not understand what Ad Hominem is. He mentions several examples of mean people getting hits and nice people (presumably the author is nice? I will be charitable) being overlooked. He mentions Zero Punctuation, which is a deliberately aggressive but generally insightful video game reviewer. In other words, he lauds forceful language and linkbaiting but doesn't actually give any examples of people engaging in Ad Hominem. The article is, at the very least, poorly researched.

lionhearted 17y ago
This is spot on: > Not only does he get this wrong, but in general he seemed to not understand what Ad Hominem is. For instance: > He mentions Zero Punctuation, which is a deliberately aggressive but generally insightful video game reviewer. The ZP reviewer fellow, very entertaining, mentions the flaws of something - bad pace, unoriginal story, repetitive gameplay - but that's NOT ad hominem. Saying, "The New Mario Brothers isn't very innovative" isn't ad hominem. Saying, "The New Mario Brothers is a boring suckfest" also isn't ad hominem. Ad hominem is, "Mario Brothers? Why even bother playing it? Nintendo couldn't make a good game to save their life." I think the author is saying that you can disagree, but he doesn't exactly know what ad hominem is. Ad hominem would be saying, "Look, he's a Christian. No way his chemistry research could be any good." --> Attacks the person, not their argument/viewpoint/science/work. Sometimes it's valid, but very rarely, and most of the time you'd be better off just refuting their points instead of slinging mud at them as a person.
- bitdiddle 17y ago
  Exactly, there's another form of it also that I find equally off putting, .eg. "well every boolean algebra must be isomorphic to a field of sets because Marshall Stone thinks so.....". In this case it's true but the argument is hardly convincing.
  - KirinDave 17y ago
    That's called "Argument from Authority" (latin: argumentum ad verecundiam). It's not exactly isomorphic to the Ad Hominem fallacy, but it's close.

kscaldef 17y ago

I think he was misled by the fact that the essay was reposted to HN a day or two ago. Or, maybe he simply takes a longer view than the average internet poo slinger :-).