4 ms·

Not an argument, not a discussion. It is simply considering how much fact check should be done before we can take their words for it. There can be no ad-hominem

Not an argument, not a discussion. It is simply considering how much fact check should be done before we can take their words for it. There can be no ad-hominem attack when the message is unidirectional.

lstodd 8y ago
So instead of checking if facts support or at least do not contradict their postulated hypothesis, resort to checking facts about their persona? Do I have to explain this in even simpler words?
- dejaime 8y ago
  "Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself." Keys, it is an argumentative strategy to avoid a genuine discussion. This is not a discussion. The author of the article is not here to join in argumentative discussion. Being passive aggressive won't change that.
  - lstodd 8y ago
    Okay, it looks like i have to put it into simplest words possible. As mentioned elsewhere this: > So… My first instinct when I read debunking efforts like this is to try to check out who is doing the debunking. is the definition of "ad hominem". Attacking not the position a person holds, but the person. Discussion is what we have here. The comment in question, a part of the discussion, implied that the point what was made by the author is questionable because of who the author is.
    - dejaime 8y ago
      No. Ad hominem only exists when there is a disagreement. So, one side of the argumentation uses the fallacy to counter the other side's argument. This IS NOT the case. This is akin to simple research. Imagine you want to build a computer, and in your research you find The Verge's guide. You look up The Verge and check that it is simply not a good source for such information. There is no one against another here. It is one with an argument, and one neutral, consuming the content, with no position whatsoever.
      - PavlovsCat 8y ago
        Yeah, there's no argument, but there's calling it a "debunking effort" right out of the gate. I think that's called a bald assertion? Anyway, that there's a claim, but no argument to support it, doesn't make it neutral. That it's slipped in right at the beginning and then not returned to and elaborated on doesn't make it better. To instead pick one sentence from the first Google result of the university the author is at isn't exactly checking the quality of the source, either, that just removes it further from that slipped in bald assertion and the article itself. > Like it or not … when an institution positions themselves like that, it makes me wonder a little bit about whether they really can support unbiased environmental science Maybe the university can't, maybe the author pulls it off regardless. Has anyone ever seen someone do good work at a shitty company? It wouldn't quite work to say "can anyone tell me if someone who studies or teaches at a university with a questionable line of PR on website can possibly be unbiased about environmental science?", the answer is something like "of course that's possible, to the extent that any human can be free of bias.. to give a useful answer maybe tell me what person and more importantly what research are you thinking of?", which would bring us to a point at which the comment never arrived. But if someone just "wonders", then it's supposedly not okay to ask them to make up their mind before they post, or at least say what is keeping them from doing so. It's like "I'm not entirely sure I'm convinced most people would agree that" and other phrases, it does imply something, as faintly as it may be, but with plausible deniability. Generally speaking I find that worse than even a direct false claim, which I can correct, in these instances it's like saying the emperor is naked, and people go "there is no emperor, how rude".
        8y ago
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

lstodd 8y ago

So instead of checking if facts support or at least do not contradict their postulated hypothesis, resort to checking facts about their persona? Do I have to explain this in even simpler words?

dejaime 8y ago
"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself." Keys, it is an argumentative strategy to avoid a genuine discussion. This is not a discussion. The author of the article is not here to join in argumentative discussion. Being passive aggressive won't change that.
- lstodd 8y ago
  Okay, it looks like i have to put it into simplest words possible. As mentioned elsewhere this: > So… My first instinct when I read debunking efforts like this is to try to check out who is doing the debunking. is the definition of "ad hominem". Attacking not the position a person holds, but the person. Discussion is what we have here. The comment in question, a part of the discussion, implied that the point what was made by the author is questionable because of who the author is.
  - dejaime 8y ago
    No. Ad hominem only exists when there is a disagreement. So, one side of the argumentation uses the fallacy to counter the other side's argument. This IS NOT the case. This is akin to simple research. Imagine you want to build a computer, and in your research you find The Verge's guide. You look up The Verge and check that it is simply not a good source for such information. There is no one against another here. It is one with an argument, and one neutral, consuming the content, with no position whatsoever.
    - PavlovsCat 8y ago
      Yeah, there's no argument, but there's calling it a "debunking effort" right out of the gate. I think that's called a bald assertion? Anyway, that there's a claim, but no argument to support it, doesn't make it neutral. That it's slipped in right at the beginning and then not returned to and elaborated on doesn't make it better. To instead pick one sentence from the first Google result of the university the author is at isn't exactly checking the quality of the source, either, that just removes it further from that slipped in bald assertion and the article itself. > Like it or not … when an institution positions themselves like that, it makes me wonder a little bit about whether they really can support unbiased environmental science Maybe the university can't, maybe the author pulls it off regardless. Has anyone ever seen someone do good work at a shitty company? It wouldn't quite work to say "can anyone tell me if someone who studies or teaches at a university with a questionable line of PR on website can possibly be unbiased about environmental science?", the answer is something like "of course that's possible, to the extent that any human can be free of bias.. to give a useful answer maybe tell me what person and more importantly what research are you thinking of?", which would bring us to a point at which the comment never arrived. But if someone just "wonders", then it's supposedly not okay to ask them to make up their mind before they post, or at least say what is keeping them from doing so. It's like "I'm not entirely sure I'm convinced most people would agree that" and other phrases, it does imply something, as faintly as it may be, but with plausible deniability. Generally speaking I find that worse than even a direct false claim, which I can correct, in these instances it's like saying the emperor is naked, and people go "there is no emperor, how rude".
      - 8y ago
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]