4 ms·

I'm not sure how you conclude that the PhD has been earned. The about page uses the future tense, there has been a lot of time to update it, and there's this:

by apo 9y ago

I'm not sure how you conclude that the PhD has been earned. The about page uses the future tense, there has been a lot of time to update it, and there's this: With luck, my thesis will be complete in late 2017 – only three years later than I planned! The extra years have been well spent in researching and writing about environmental issues, particularly energy/environment nexus. This has resulted to two books in collaboration with Rauli Partanen: Climate Gamble and Musta hevonen. When an author puts credentials in the title of an article, then credentials are on the table as a point of discussion.

ChrisLomont 9y ago
>I'm not sure how you conclude that the PhD has been earned. I didn't say it was. I stated the thesis was finished. These are distinct. The latter requires a defense of the thesis before a committee, and in pretty much every decent PhD program, is merely a formality since the advisor should not let the student defend until he/she is ready. I had my thesis finished long before I did my defense, and I passed that months before the PhD was conferred, which happens at graduation. Here's [1] a speech given before his thesis defense, so I suspect he has passed his thesis defense. So either he got his actual PhD at the end of the term or is waiting to get it at the next term end. >When an author puts credentials in the title of an article, then credentials are on the table as a point of discussion. Neither PhD nor Doctor appear in the title or in the article. You brought up the PhD silliness. A PhD is neither required nor implied in this post. You're still stuck on ad hominem. If you want to criticize, do so on the merits of the article, not strawmen you dig up. [1] https://jmkorhonen.net/2017/12/15/necessity-is-the-mother-of-inventors-my-phd-lecture/ https://jmkorhonen.net/2017/12/15/necessity-is-the-mother-of...
- desu_ 9y ago
  Ad hominem is wrong, but so is argument from authority. My professional opinion as a blockchain researcher I’ve spent the last 15 months researching the implications and possibilities of blockchains and related “distributed trust technologies” from a business and societal point of view. And dirtyaura's comment consolidates the author is some figure we can trust mantra. In the end, the article states that people should not put their savings into coins but smart contracts are nice. Something others have said before but it's more clickbaity to state that it's coming from a professional blockchain researcher.
  - ChrisLomont 9y ago
    Claiming it's an argument from authority is the fallacy fallacy. An argument from authority goes: "I am an authority therefore the following is correct." This is nowhere near that. He correctly stated it was his professional opinion that..... He didn't claim the argument is correct because he's a professional. And he is a professional, doing this work in a professional context for 15 months. So it is absolutely correct to state "my professional opinion is...". He has likely put far more work into this, and certainly with better background and training, than probably anyone on this thread questioning his credentials instead of addressing his message.
    - desu_ 9y ago
      It's not a fallacy fallacy since I point out one weakness in the article but do not assume the proposition is wrong for that reason. Actually, if you read my last paragraph, it's obvious that I even agree with the author's argument to some extent. I only attack him for making a boring claim more clickbaity through his credentials. From my quick skimming, mostly apo questioned the credentials. Yes, you are using ad hominem against the one you accused (rightly of doing so).
- apo 9y ago
  You brought up the PhD silliness. I quoted the author's about page, which says nothing about block chain research. That quote happened to mention a PhD, which I could not care less about. Much more important is the fact that the bio page says nothing about block chain research. It is you who seems intent on discussing the author's PhD, which you demonstrated in your first response - and your second. I brought up the author's about page because the author implicitly appeals to authority in the title of the piece by claiming to be a "professional" "blockchain researcher." The article itself says nothing about this research other than it supposedly happened. Nor does it contain anything that I found novel or insightful. The second part of my original comment speaks to the substance of the article. A PhD is neither required nor implied in this post. I never said this, nor do I care what letters appear after a person's name. But when that person tries to claim the mantle of authority in the title of an essay, looking into the author's background is fair game. Neither the article nor the bio provide evidence that that the author is a "professional" blockchain researcher. The content of the article is mediocre at best, suggesting the author has a weak understanding of the topic at hand. I provided a specific example in my first response.

by apo 9y ago

ChrisLomont 9y ago

>I'm not sure how you conclude that the PhD has been earned. I didn't say it was. I stated the thesis was finished. These are distinct. The latter requires a defense of the thesis before a committee, and in pretty much every decent PhD program, is merely a formality since the advisor should not let the student defend until he/she is ready. I had my thesis finished long before I did my defense, and I passed that months before the PhD was conferred, which happens at graduation. Here's [1] a speech given before his thesis defense, so I suspect he has passed his thesis defense. So either he got his actual PhD at the end of the term or is waiting to get it at the next term end. >When an author puts credentials in the title of an article, then credentials are on the table as a point of discussion. Neither PhD nor Doctor appear in the title or in the article. You brought up the PhD silliness. A PhD is neither required nor implied in this post. You're still stuck on ad hominem. If you want to criticize, do so on the merits of the article, not strawmen you dig up. [1] https://jmkorhonen.net/2017/12/15/necessity-is-the-mother-of-inventors-my-phd-lecture/ https://jmkorhonen.net/2017/12/15/necessity-is-the-mother-of...

desu_ 9y ago
Ad hominem is wrong, but so is argument from authority. My professional opinion as a blockchain researcher I’ve spent the last 15 months researching the implications and possibilities of blockchains and related “distributed trust technologies” from a business and societal point of view. And dirtyaura's comment consolidates the author is some figure we can trust mantra. In the end, the article states that people should not put their savings into coins but smart contracts are nice. Something others have said before but it's more clickbaity to state that it's coming from a professional blockchain researcher.
- ChrisLomont 9y ago
  Claiming it's an argument from authority is the fallacy fallacy. An argument from authority goes: "I am an authority therefore the following is correct." This is nowhere near that. He correctly stated it was his professional opinion that..... He didn't claim the argument is correct because he's a professional. And he is a professional, doing this work in a professional context for 15 months. So it is absolutely correct to state "my professional opinion is...". He has likely put far more work into this, and certainly with better background and training, than probably anyone on this thread questioning his credentials instead of addressing his message.
  - desu_ 9y ago
    It's not a fallacy fallacy since I point out one weakness in the article but do not assume the proposition is wrong for that reason. Actually, if you read my last paragraph, it's obvious that I even agree with the author's argument to some extent. I only attack him for making a boring claim more clickbaity through his credentials. From my quick skimming, mostly apo questioned the credentials. Yes, you are using ad hominem against the one you accused (rightly of doing so).
apo 9y ago
You brought up the PhD silliness. I quoted the author's about page, which says nothing about block chain research. That quote happened to mention a PhD, which I could not care less about. Much more important is the fact that the bio page says nothing about block chain research. It is you who seems intent on discussing the author's PhD, which you demonstrated in your first response - and your second. I brought up the author's about page because the author implicitly appeals to authority in the title of the piece by claiming to be a "professional" "blockchain researcher." The article itself says nothing about this research other than it supposedly happened. Nor does it contain anything that I found novel or insightful. The second part of my original comment speaks to the substance of the article. A PhD is neither required nor implied in this post. I never said this, nor do I care what letters appear after a person's name. But when that person tries to claim the mantle of authority in the title of an essay, looking into the author's background is fair game. Neither the article nor the bio provide evidence that that the author is a "professional" blockchain researcher. The content of the article is mediocre at best, suggesting the author has a weak understanding of the topic at hand. I provided a specific example in my first response.