3 ms·

Its the very definition of an Ad Hominem fallacy: "When the source is viewed negatively because of its association with another person or group who is already

Its the very definition of an Ad Hominem fallacy: "When the source is viewed negatively because of its association with another person or group who is already viewed negatively." https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/10/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFalla... At no point did you address any of the actual claims in the article.

woodruffw 9y ago
You can read what I think about ad hominems here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14121456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14121456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13964490 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13964490 Here's the short and sweet version: it's not fallacious to consider the character of actors if past experience indicates profound dishonesty/irrationality on their part. I think Big Ag's lobbying arm satisfies that condition. Unless you're actually claiming that this site represents our best science (and not a bunch of think-tank-funded, cherry-picked studies), you're missing the point: all of the links above are good evidence that we should take this source with a grain of salt. They're not an outright dismissal; only more information.
- slededit 9y ago
  Except you haven't linked any evidence that the specific authors have conducted bad science in the past, merely that they have accepted money from people you don't like.
  - woodruffw 9y ago
    You're right: I've committed the grave sin of counting on it being common knowledge that (for example) Monsanto ghostwrites papers claiming that Roundup is safe[1], and that groups like the AEI have tried to bribe scientists into critiquing global authorities on climate change[2]. Give me a break. HN is an educated audience, and just about everybody in North America who reads the news knows at least something about Monsanto/DuPont/Exxon/whoever manipulating the scientific process. [1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/monsanto-was-its-own-ghostwriter-for-some-safety-reviews https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/monsanto-... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute#Global_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute#...
    - cholantesh 9y ago
      Nah, you commited the grave sin of not considering that any of this isn't theatre for an ambulance chasing legal firm. That's actually covered in the article, and since you've been following this, you should be able to see the emails are pretty tepid stuff if read soberly.

woodruffw 9y ago

You can read what I think about ad hominems here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14121456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14121456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13964490 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13964490 Here's the short and sweet version: it's not fallacious to consider the character of actors if past experience indicates profound dishonesty/irrationality on their part. I think Big Ag's lobbying arm satisfies that condition. Unless you're actually claiming that this site represents our best science (and not a bunch of think-tank-funded, cherry-picked studies), you're missing the point: all of the links above are good evidence that we should take this source with a grain of salt. They're not an outright dismissal; only more information.

slededit 9y ago
Except you haven't linked any evidence that the specific authors have conducted bad science in the past, merely that they have accepted money from people you don't like.
- woodruffw 9y ago
  You're right: I've committed the grave sin of counting on it being common knowledge that (for example) Monsanto ghostwrites papers claiming that Roundup is safe[1], and that groups like the AEI have tried to bribe scientists into critiquing global authorities on climate change[2]. Give me a break. HN is an educated audience, and just about everybody in North America who reads the news knows at least something about Monsanto/DuPont/Exxon/whoever manipulating the scientific process. [1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/monsanto-was-its-own-ghostwriter-for-some-safety-reviews https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/monsanto-... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute#Global_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute#...
  - cholantesh 9y ago
    Nah, you commited the grave sin of not considering that any of this isn't theatre for an ambulance chasing legal firm. That's actually covered in the article, and since you've been following this, you should be able to see the emails are pretty tepid stuff if read soberly.