3 ms·

I don't see the OP laying out a case for the article's content, I see them mentioning how it's absurd for anyone to take the author of this article seriously on

by m3rc 10y ago

I don't see the OP laying out a case for the article's content, I see them mentioning how it's absurd for anyone to take the author of this article seriously on privacy issues.

jdmichal 10y ago
That's kind of what ad hominem is... Discredit the argument by discrediting the arguer. The thing is, that has zero effect on whether the argument is valid or not. The fact that I state 10 wrong facts about bananas does not mean that the next fact I state is wrong, even though I've far and away proven myself to not be a trusted expert on banana facts.
- tertius 10y ago
  The correct response would be to ignore you and only listen to people who should be trusted. Regardless of your subsequent fact listing.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >That's kind of what ad hominem is... Discredit the argument by discrediting the arguer. The thing is, that has zero effect on whether the argument is valid or not. In real life the content of an argument isn't the only think that matters. The motives of the arguer are also important -- what they're trying to achieve/sell by using it etc. That's because people don't only offer their arguments to have other people discuss them and assess their merits, but also to use them to influence people towards other stuff, often unrelated to the argument. E.g. "listen how right and eloquently I speak in favor of privacy -- and thus forgive my enormous contribution to privacy violations, or the fact that I killed an online outlet out of spite". >The fact that I state 10 wrong facts about bananas does not mean that the next fact I state is wrong No, but it means that pragmatic persons with limited time spans should do better than spend time listening you on bananas -- and thus are more right than wrong to dismiss anything else you have to offer beforehand. Sure, they might commit to a false negative this way, but it's statistically more likely that they wont (and being quick and mostly right to access stuff is more important than being 100% right but slow, again for people with limited life spans). Besides a hypocrisy charge is not the same as a "he is wrong" charge.
  - jdmichal 10y ago
    If I'm trying to sell you a high-efficiency AC unit, I will assert that it's a high-efficiency AC unit that will reduce your monthly bills, so you should buy it. You answer back that of course I would say you should buy it, because I'm selling it... Except that has absolutely zero impact on the fact that the AC unit is high-efficiency thereby will save you money. This is why ad hominem is a fallacy. It provides zero evidence for or against an argument. It's completely orthogonal.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >If I'm trying to sell you a high-efficiency AC unit, I will assert that it's a high-efficiency AC unit that will reduce your monthly bills, so you should buy it. You answer back that of course I would say you should buy it, because I'm selling it... Except that has absolutely zero impact on the fact that the AC unit is high-efficiency thereby will save you money. I'm not suggesting you "answer back" anything -- I'm suggesting that you should check if the person praising something has hidden motives. In fact, I'm saying something even more obvious: if a person praises something, and they don't seem particularly fond of having it or practicing it, then be suspicious. As for selling something, it is already a great motive to make people lie and present the facts in a distorted way, withhold precious information, etc about a product. It happens EVERY single day in millions of stores, showrooms, ads, etc. If you are only trying to evaluate the product based on what the seller tells you, you'll be duped. Even if it's 100% true in itself. >It provides zero evidence for or against an argument. It's completely orthogonal. Arguments in real life do not live in some platonic ideal sphere, isolated from everything else. They intermingle with all kinds of "completely orthogonal" things. Sometimes, judging the person making the argument, and their motives, is even more important (and insightful) than judging the argument.
      - jdmichal 10y ago
        > If you are only trying to evaluate the product based on what the seller tells you, you'll be duped. Even if it's 100% true in itself. I never advised that, but nice strawman. I advised to evaluate the arguments on their own ground. This AC is efficient and will save you money -- that is something you can independently verify, if it's important to you to do so. And if you're buying an AC and you care about efficiency, that seems like the type of thing you should care to do. That doesn't mean that you should automatically distrust a salesman. It also doesn't mean you should trust them, though apparently that's a dichotomy that exists for you. It's a null input -- there's zero actionable information if what you care about is buying an efficient AC. > Sometimes, judging the person making the argument, and their motives, is even more important (and insightful) than judging the argument. That's fine... If your goal is to gain insight into a person and their motives. If your goal is to judge their argument, then it's absolute and complete fallacy.
- nikcheerla 10y ago
  True, but that just points to the fact that ad hominem should not be dogmatically a logical fallacy.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > True, but that just points to the fact that ad hominem should not be dogmatically a logical fallacy. No, it doesn't. OTOH, a logical fallacy isn't something that means that the conclusion that flows from it is wrong, or even that the fallacy doesn't provide a useful pragmatic filter given limited resources to devote to fully evaluating arguments.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > That's kind of what ad hominem is... Strictly, the fallacy involved is tu quoque -- if it is used to rebut the argument which is inconsistent with the persons behavior -- not ad hominem. They are related, but distinct. Although I suppose if one took the route of: 1. A says X, 2. But A acts in accord with not-X, 3. Therefore, A is a hypocrite. 4. And, because A is a hypocrite, one should disregard A's arguments You could actually make an ad hominem out of the accusation of hypocrisy.
  - jdmichal 10y ago
    Sure. tu quoque is just the specific case of ad hominem being used in this instance. ad hominem is any logical argument which attacks the arguer instead of the argument itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Tu_quoque

by m3rc 10y ago

I don't see the OP laying out a case for the article's content, I see them mentioning how it's absurd for anyone to take the author of this article seriously on privacy issues.

jdmichal 10y ago

That's kind of what ad hominem is... Discredit the argument by discrediting the arguer. The thing is, that has zero effect on whether the argument is valid or not. The fact that I state 10 wrong facts about bananas does not mean that the next fact I state is wrong, even though I've far and away proven myself to not be a trusted expert on banana facts.

tertius 10y ago
The correct response would be to ignore you and only listen to people who should be trusted. Regardless of your subsequent fact listing.
coldtea 10y ago
>That's kind of what ad hominem is... Discredit the argument by discrediting the arguer. The thing is, that has zero effect on whether the argument is valid or not. In real life the content of an argument isn't the only think that matters. The motives of the arguer are also important -- what they're trying to achieve/sell by using it etc. That's because people don't only offer their arguments to have other people discuss them and assess their merits, but also to use them to influence people towards other stuff, often unrelated to the argument. E.g. "listen how right and eloquently I speak in favor of privacy -- and thus forgive my enormous contribution to privacy violations, or the fact that I killed an online outlet out of spite". >The fact that I state 10 wrong facts about bananas does not mean that the next fact I state is wrong No, but it means that pragmatic persons with limited time spans should do better than spend time listening you on bananas -- and thus are more right than wrong to dismiss anything else you have to offer beforehand. Sure, they might commit to a false negative this way, but it's statistically more likely that they wont (and being quick and mostly right to access stuff is more important than being 100% right but slow, again for people with limited life spans). Besides a hypocrisy charge is not the same as a "he is wrong" charge.
- jdmichal 10y ago
  If I'm trying to sell you a high-efficiency AC unit, I will assert that it's a high-efficiency AC unit that will reduce your monthly bills, so you should buy it. You answer back that of course I would say you should buy it, because I'm selling it... Except that has absolutely zero impact on the fact that the AC unit is high-efficiency thereby will save you money. This is why ad hominem is a fallacy. It provides zero evidence for or against an argument. It's completely orthogonal.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >If I'm trying to sell you a high-efficiency AC unit, I will assert that it's a high-efficiency AC unit that will reduce your monthly bills, so you should buy it. You answer back that of course I would say you should buy it, because I'm selling it... Except that has absolutely zero impact on the fact that the AC unit is high-efficiency thereby will save you money. I'm not suggesting you "answer back" anything -- I'm suggesting that you should check if the person praising something has hidden motives. In fact, I'm saying something even more obvious: if a person praises something, and they don't seem particularly fond of having it or practicing it, then be suspicious. As for selling something, it is already a great motive to make people lie and present the facts in a distorted way, withhold precious information, etc about a product. It happens EVERY single day in millions of stores, showrooms, ads, etc. If you are only trying to evaluate the product based on what the seller tells you, you'll be duped. Even if it's 100% true in itself. >It provides zero evidence for or against an argument. It's completely orthogonal. Arguments in real life do not live in some platonic ideal sphere, isolated from everything else. They intermingle with all kinds of "completely orthogonal" things. Sometimes, judging the person making the argument, and their motives, is even more important (and insightful) than judging the argument.
    - jdmichal 10y ago
      > If you are only trying to evaluate the product based on what the seller tells you, you'll be duped. Even if it's 100% true in itself. I never advised that, but nice strawman. I advised to evaluate the arguments on their own ground. This AC is efficient and will save you money -- that is something you can independently verify, if it's important to you to do so. And if you're buying an AC and you care about efficiency, that seems like the type of thing you should care to do. That doesn't mean that you should automatically distrust a salesman. It also doesn't mean you should trust them, though apparently that's a dichotomy that exists for you. It's a null input -- there's zero actionable information if what you care about is buying an efficient AC. > Sometimes, judging the person making the argument, and their motives, is even more important (and insightful) than judging the argument. That's fine... If your goal is to gain insight into a person and their motives. If your goal is to judge their argument, then it's absolute and complete fallacy.
nikcheerla 10y ago
True, but that just points to the fact that ad hominem should not be dogmatically a logical fallacy.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > True, but that just points to the fact that ad hominem should not be dogmatically a logical fallacy. No, it doesn't. OTOH, a logical fallacy isn't something that means that the conclusion that flows from it is wrong, or even that the fallacy doesn't provide a useful pragmatic filter given limited resources to devote to fully evaluating arguments.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> That's kind of what ad hominem is... Strictly, the fallacy involved is tu quoque -- if it is used to rebut the argument which is inconsistent with the persons behavior -- not ad hominem. They are related, but distinct. Although I suppose if one took the route of: 1. A says X, 2. But A acts in accord with not-X, 3. Therefore, A is a hypocrite. 4. And, because A is a hypocrite, one should disregard A's arguments You could actually make an ad hominem out of the accusation of hypocrisy.
- jdmichal 10y ago
  Sure. tu quoque is just the specific case of ad hominem being used in this instance. ad hominem is any logical argument which attacks the arguer instead of the argument itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Tu_quoque