2 ms·
It wasn't ad hominem. He had addressed the argument, and refers to that, before adding that Popper was an egocentric jerk. That might be abusive, but it's not a
by FabHK 8y ago
It wasn't ad hominem. He had addressed the argument, and refers to that, before adding that Popper was an egocentric jerk. That might be abusive, but it's not ad hominem (because it's in addition, not instead of, a rebuttal of the argument).
See the excellent "Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy":
https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html
- lisper 8y agoWe'll just have to agree to disagree about that. It's pretty clear to me that "egocentric jerk" was intended to impugn Popper's credibility and not just a random insult. But if it wasn't an ad hominem, then it was a non-sequitur. Either way, it's not the most effective way to support the position the philosophy has made progress IMHO. Hence: irony.
- mattmanser 8y agoBeing an egocentric jerk makes you no less credible, it just makes you unpleasant.