3 ms·

It is not an ad hominem attack to point out that the source of the information has previously shown to be biased and use monetary incentives to garner outcomes

It is not an ad hominem attack to point out that the source of the information has previously shown to be biased and use monetary incentives to garner outcomes that fit their viewpoints.

gmu3 8y ago
You can argue its justified but if its not ad hominem then what is it?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  It's ad hominem if you say that the study must be false because the source has a history of sponsoring fabrications which suit it's ideological biases, and that the result here is one which suits those biases. It's not, OTOH, ad hominem to point out the same fact, for instance, as a caution to those who might uncritically accept the conclusions offered by the source.
glenra 8y ago
It is pointless mudslinging. Every think tank compensates scientists to write policy papers. Somehow the fact that this one was right-wing made it possible to portray the practice as nefarious, whereas when, say, the Center for American Progress compensates left-wing researchers for writing anti-minimum-wage studies that isn't considered newsworthy. Writing papers that usefully critique the IPCC reports is important and there's nothing wrong with compensating such work. The thing AEI did "wrong" was to cast a wider net in an attempt to find people better capable of doing that. AEI was doing something praiseworthy - trying to find critiques from outside normal places a conservative think tank might look, which might highlight overlooked points of view. If that's wrong, what's the alternative? Only use papers from people you have on salary? Only use papers from people who are so solidly in your own ideological camp they won't run to the Guardian? That's nuts! Shouldn't we WANT any scientists who have reservations about the IPCC conclusions to have an incentive to write papers exploring the question?

3 ms·

It is not an ad hominem attack to point out that the source of the information has previously shown to be biased and use monetary incentives to garner outcomes

by cthalupa 8y ago

It is not an ad hominem attack to point out that the source of the information has previously shown to be biased and use monetary incentives to garner outcomes that fit their viewpoints.

gmu3 8y ago
You can argue its justified but if its not ad hominem then what is it?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  It's ad hominem if you say that the study must be false because the source has a history of sponsoring fabrications which suit it's ideological biases, and that the result here is one which suits those biases. It's not, OTOH, ad hominem to point out the same fact, for instance, as a caution to those who might uncritically accept the conclusions offered by the source.
glenra 8y ago
It is pointless mudslinging. Every think tank compensates scientists to write policy papers. Somehow the fact that this one was right-wing made it possible to portray the practice as nefarious, whereas when, say, the Center for American Progress compensates left-wing researchers for writing anti-minimum-wage studies that isn't considered newsworthy. Writing papers that usefully critique the IPCC reports is important and there's nothing wrong with compensating such work. The thing AEI did "wrong" was to cast a wider net in an attempt to find people better capable of doing that. AEI was doing something praiseworthy - trying to find critiques from outside normal places a conservative think tank might look, which might highlight overlooked points of view. If that's wrong, what's the alternative? Only use papers from people you have on salary? Only use papers from people who are so solidly in your own ideological camp they won't run to the Guardian? That's nuts! Shouldn't we WANT any scientists who have reservations about the IPCC conclusions to have an incentive to write papers exploring the question?