3 ms·

You’ve employed some sort of inverse ad hominem here. Credentials don’t mean we should take someone seriously. Their words should stand for themselves.

by drb91 9y ago

toomuchtodo 9y ago
> Credentials don’t mean we should take someone seriously. This is a level of cognitive dissonance I’m not prepared to commit to arguing against. I’m not capable of issuing the bar to every lawyer I require the services of, nor the board to every presumed doctor, nor a thesis defense to every academic. Credentials aren’t perfect, but they are superior to the time required for everyone to judge everything on their own. For example, almost all scientists agree that climate change is human caused. Do I spend my time digging through climate data, verifying this? No. I rely on the expertise of experts.
- drb91 9y ago
  This makes sense for hiring a human. It doesn’t make sense for evaluating what they say in a general context. Credentials are fairly useless next to consensus for evaluating a given statement. Credenials have use; just not in conversation.
- yosito 9y ago
  You've just touched on why it's so hard to get a job in tech. As a culture, we've taken an attitude that credentials don't matter, and no matter what our past achievements are, we've got to prove ourselves over and over again. Maybe credentials should matter.
- TimmyMustGo 9y ago
  A lot of climate change "experts" are paid to generate research that is biased in order to support the agenda of whoever is paying them. Sometimes I'll see research using data that only goes back to perhaps 1970 or the 1800s for example, which is ridiculous. Climate change is the modern day religion. I wonder if the world will end up going to war over this. Personally I believe that humans are not capable of causing climate change, they are too insignificant in the grand scheme of things. And if the climate didn't change, it would be a bad thing, because that would mean that the planet is dead.
c22 9y ago
An "inverse ad hominem" is called an appeal to authority[0]. I don't think gp was insinuating that the author's points were true because they are an academic, though. Only suggesting that they not be dismissed out of hand, and lobbying for more insightful commentary on hn. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

You’ve employed some sort of inverse ad hominem here. Credentials don’t mean we should take someone seriously. Their words should stand for themselves.

by drb91 9y ago

You’ve employed some sort of inverse ad hominem here. Credentials don’t mean we should take someone seriously. Their words should stand for themselves.

toomuchtodo 9y ago

> Credentials don’t mean we should take someone seriously. This is a level of cognitive dissonance I’m not prepared to commit to arguing against. I’m not capable of issuing the bar to every lawyer I require the services of, nor the board to every presumed doctor, nor a thesis defense to every academic. Credentials aren’t perfect, but they are superior to the time required for everyone to judge everything on their own. For example, almost all scientists agree that climate change is human caused. Do I spend my time digging through climate data, verifying this? No. I rely on the expertise of experts.

drb91 9y ago
This makes sense for hiring a human. It doesn’t make sense for evaluating what they say in a general context. Credentials are fairly useless next to consensus for evaluating a given statement. Credenials have use; just not in conversation.
yosito 9y ago
You've just touched on why it's so hard to get a job in tech. As a culture, we've taken an attitude that credentials don't matter, and no matter what our past achievements are, we've got to prove ourselves over and over again. Maybe credentials should matter.
TimmyMustGo 9y ago
A lot of climate change "experts" are paid to generate research that is biased in order to support the agenda of whoever is paying them. Sometimes I'll see research using data that only goes back to perhaps 1970 or the 1800s for example, which is ridiculous. Climate change is the modern day religion. I wonder if the world will end up going to war over this. Personally I believe that humans are not capable of causing climate change, they are too insignificant in the grand scheme of things. And if the climate didn't change, it would be a bad thing, because that would mean that the planet is dead.

c22 9y ago

An "inverse ad hominem" is called an appeal to authority[0]. I don't think gp was insinuating that the author's points were true because they are an academic, though. Only suggesting that they not be dismissed out of hand, and lobbying for more insightful commentary on hn. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority