4 ms·

If they choose to publish their activities and offer an explanation, of course they’re inviting comment.

moron4hire 9y ago
There is comment and then there is literal ad hominem. "This guy is incredibly stupid." Lots of people do lots of things that—on the outside—look stupid. Hell, I would wager the odds of having a lasting impact in the world by choosing to join a startup are lower than this.
- klmr 9y ago
  Saying — based on evidence — that somebody is stupid isn’t an ad hominem. At worst it’s shorthand for “his actions are stupid”. Which, given the evidence, they unarguably are: Virtually every expert in the field, as well as other biohackers, think that what he’s doing is a bad idea, and based on dangerous superficial knowledge. The comparison to Barry Marshall (the stomach ulcher guy) is particularly unhelpful since Marshall was an expert in the field, and acting on a solid theory and with a contingency plan. But even his actions are still rightly called reckless. All that said, I’m still impressed with Roberts’ self-experiment, and curious about the results of the long-term follow-up. But it is stupid.
- jerf 9y ago
  ad hominem is "He's stupid, therefore he's wrong about some claim." "He did a stupid thing, therefore he's stupid" is not ad hominem. Inflammatory, subject to a huge debate about definitions, perhaps even wrong? Sure. But if you expand it out reasonably (a sample intervening premise: "People who do stupid things are stupid."), the logic is valid, in the technical sense. To attack the conclusion requires attacking something else about the premises, the most obvious fruitful avenue being the definition of "stupid" in question. (Although, spoiler, that pretty much ends in "I have my definition and you have yours, and by mine, yes, he's stupid, but by yours, no, he's not.", and as long as we don't mistake the map for the territory and argue as if the definition of "stupid" that is used by someone has any power over the real world, is a perfectly acceptable result.) (Incidentally, I consider my sample intervening premise up there as stronger than I personally would use the word stupid. I like to think of myself as generally not stupid, but I've done stupid things. Still, with that premise, the argument is logically valid.)

There is comment and then there is literal ad hominem. "This guy is incredibly stupid." Lots of people do lots of things that—on the outside—look stupid. Hell, I would wager the odds of having a lasting impact in the world by choosing to join a startup are lower than this.

klmr 9y ago
Saying — based on evidence — that somebody is stupid isn’t an ad hominem. At worst it’s shorthand for “his actions are stupid”. Which, given the evidence, they unarguably are: Virtually every expert in the field, as well as other biohackers, think that what he’s doing is a bad idea, and based on dangerous superficial knowledge. The comparison to Barry Marshall (the stomach ulcher guy) is particularly unhelpful since Marshall was an expert in the field, and acting on a solid theory and with a contingency plan. But even his actions are still rightly called reckless. All that said, I’m still impressed with Roberts’ self-experiment, and curious about the results of the long-term follow-up. But it is stupid.
jerf 9y ago
ad hominem is "He's stupid, therefore he's wrong about some claim." "He did a stupid thing, therefore he's stupid" is not ad hominem. Inflammatory, subject to a huge debate about definitions, perhaps even wrong? Sure. But if you expand it out reasonably (a sample intervening premise: "People who do stupid things are stupid."), the logic is valid, in the technical sense. To attack the conclusion requires attacking something else about the premises, the most obvious fruitful avenue being the definition of "stupid" in question. (Although, spoiler, that pretty much ends in "I have my definition and you have yours, and by mine, yes, he's stupid, but by yours, no, he's not.", and as long as we don't mistake the map for the territory and argue as if the definition of "stupid" that is used by someone has any power over the real world, is a perfectly acceptable result.) (Incidentally, I consider my sample intervening premise up there as stronger than I personally would use the word stupid. I like to think of myself as generally not stupid, but I've done stupid things. Still, with that premise, the argument is logically valid.)