4 ms·
Good point. I think people may confuse logic with believability. I could propose in this comment a cure for cancer based on a perfectly sound a logical argume
by WhitneyLand 9y ago
Good point. I think people may confuse logic with believability.
I could propose in this comment a cure for cancer based on a perfectly sound a logical argument and my (lack of medical) credibility would have zero affect on the cogency of what I was saying.
But it does mean, you should probably not be convinced, or at least not send me all of your money to invest in my cancer research startup.
Also for some reason it's very easy to judge something as reasonable when we actually don't have any domain expertise. Not sure why, it seems built into most of us to feel natural.
- tptacek 9y agoI'm not going to give an inch on this. This isn't an issue of logic versus persuasion. It is logically valid to attack the credibility of an argument that depends in any way, implicitly or overtly, on the credibility or authority of its bearer. The "ad hominem fallacy" is misused on the Internet probably more than it is applied correctly.
- WhitneyLand 9y agoI don't think you have to give an inch. I'm agreeing it's legit to judge someone's argument based on credibility. The reason is imperfect information. If I described here an actual, real, cure for all cancer, people shouldn't believe it because credibility is shit, it hasn't been clinically proven, and it might take 10 years to do so. If I write in a solid proof for a millennium prize problem, you're probably going to be safe not worrying about my credibility at all because the truth will be known in pretty short order. Usually the more uncertainty the more credibility has to be weighted.