3 ms·

That was quite the ad hominem right there.

mr_overalls 9y ago
There are different levels of ad hominem. Recognizing that a claimant lacks experience or education to make a highly technical/scientific claim is a useful first filter in considering whether to devote the time to evaluate an argument. For example, if Richard Feynman had published a paper claiming to have invented a prototype anti-gravity machine, his claim would have been taken much more seriously than if an uneducated TV repairman from eastern Omaha had claimed the same thing. Perhaps that's an ad hominem against the repairman, but in the real world, it's also a useful heuristic. Our time and attention are constrained quantities - doubly so in the age of the Internet where anyone can claim anything.
- jabl 9y ago
  Sure, time is limited and the internet provides an endless supply of cranks in all categories. That being said, while I'm not familiar with the other writings of this Dolan person, he's hardly the first to argue that carrier battle groups are, if not outright obsolete, at least pretty poor choices on a bang per buck basis in a fight against a technologically advanced adversary. Are they all cranks? You make a comparison to science, but I do think it's slightly different. A military is by its nature a strongly hierarchical organization, and there's something in such organizations that makes them hard to turn around when circumstances change. A scientist, OTOH, if he manages to upend the status quo, fame and fortune (eh, maybe lets forget that fortune part, but still) awaits him. So maybe military leaders would be well advised to consider outside opinions in order to not be led astray by institutional inertia?
- warcher 9y ago
  I would argue that the readership of that blog would merit at least a discussion of his argument, which you will not even attempt. Like it or not, people know who he is and they read what he writes. If he's wrong, it's doubly important that you address his point of view, because a lot of people are reading it. Going ad hominem just gives credence to his unspoken assertion that the US military is an old-boys club clinging to their preconceived notions in the absence of an actual war to fight. I would further argue that someone being wholly ignorant whereof they speak would make it very easy to dismantle their position. I've seen it happen pretty often on the internet.
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    Here are my thoughts: I think the burden is on the author - any author - to establish that their arguments are worth responding to, rather than on me to prove that they are not. There are far too many authors and arguments to give them all credence by default. Readership is not a good signal - plenty of absolute nonsense has far more readership than the War Nerd. > you will not even attempt Even if Dolan's arguments are worth addressing, it's not my job to personally address every argument. I think I added something valuable to the discussion; other people can contribute too. > Going ad hominem just gives credence to his unspoken assertion that the US military is an old-boys club clinging to their preconceived notions That assumes that I'm representing that old boys' club, and I'm certainly not a member. They wouldn't let me into the foyer unless I was delivering dinner, nor do I desire to join. I could get into Dolan's club, however, if I wanted to. > in the absence of an actual war to fight The U.S. military is fighting wars and has been continuously for almost 16 years, the longest such period in the nation's history, I think. The wars have transformed their approach so much that there is a major concern that all they know how to do is fight counter-insurgencies and not high-end near-peers (e.g., China and Russia). As they shift back to the latter, everything is being re-examined in light of AI and the wide availability of precision munitions (e.g., rockets accurate enough to reliably hit a ship) along with the accompanying sensor networks, which used to be a U.S. monopoly.

There are different levels of ad hominem. Recognizing that a claimant lacks experience or education to make a highly technical/scientific claim is a useful first filter in considering whether to devote the time to evaluate an argument. For example, if Richard Feynman had published a paper claiming to have invented a prototype anti-gravity machine, his claim would have been taken much more seriously than if an uneducated TV repairman from eastern Omaha had claimed the same thing. Perhaps that's an ad hominem against the repairman, but in the real world, it's also a useful heuristic. Our time and attention are constrained quantities - doubly so in the age of the Internet where anyone can claim anything.

jabl 9y ago
Sure, time is limited and the internet provides an endless supply of cranks in all categories. That being said, while I'm not familiar with the other writings of this Dolan person, he's hardly the first to argue that carrier battle groups are, if not outright obsolete, at least pretty poor choices on a bang per buck basis in a fight against a technologically advanced adversary. Are they all cranks? You make a comparison to science, but I do think it's slightly different. A military is by its nature a strongly hierarchical organization, and there's something in such organizations that makes them hard to turn around when circumstances change. A scientist, OTOH, if he manages to upend the status quo, fame and fortune (eh, maybe lets forget that fortune part, but still) awaits him. So maybe military leaders would be well advised to consider outside opinions in order to not be led astray by institutional inertia?
warcher 9y ago
I would argue that the readership of that blog would merit at least a discussion of his argument, which you will not even attempt. Like it or not, people know who he is and they read what he writes. If he's wrong, it's doubly important that you address his point of view, because a lot of people are reading it. Going ad hominem just gives credence to his unspoken assertion that the US military is an old-boys club clinging to their preconceived notions in the absence of an actual war to fight. I would further argue that someone being wholly ignorant whereof they speak would make it very easy to dismantle their position. I've seen it happen pretty often on the internet.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  Here are my thoughts: I think the burden is on the author - any author - to establish that their arguments are worth responding to, rather than on me to prove that they are not. There are far too many authors and arguments to give them all credence by default. Readership is not a good signal - plenty of absolute nonsense has far more readership than the War Nerd. > you will not even attempt Even if Dolan's arguments are worth addressing, it's not my job to personally address every argument. I think I added something valuable to the discussion; other people can contribute too. > Going ad hominem just gives credence to his unspoken assertion that the US military is an old-boys club clinging to their preconceived notions That assumes that I'm representing that old boys' club, and I'm certainly not a member. They wouldn't let me into the foyer unless I was delivering dinner, nor do I desire to join. I could get into Dolan's club, however, if I wanted to. > in the absence of an actual war to fight The U.S. military is fighting wars and has been continuously for almost 16 years, the longest such period in the nation's history, I think. The wars have transformed their approach so much that there is a major concern that all they know how to do is fight counter-insurgencies and not high-end near-peers (e.g., China and Russia). As they shift back to the latter, everything is being re-examined in light of AI and the wide availability of precision munitions (e.g., rockets accurate enough to reliably hit a ship) along with the accompanying sensor networks, which used to be a U.S. monopoly.