3 ms·

It's not an ad hom at all and the reason is very simple: OP isn't arguing that we should dismiss the research based on the findings, only that we might, upon fu

It's not an ad hom at all and the reason is very simple: OP isn't arguing that we should dismiss the research based on the findings, only that we might, upon further investigation, have more reason to be skeptical. For better or worse, many of us tend to trust whatever is labelled as science so long as it's the PDF file type and there's a list of Harvard-style citations at the bottom. If OP said "Look, this person got their degree from a low quality place! Let's dismiss the argument because nobody from such a place could produce good research", that would be an ad hom. But this goes beyond calling out informal fallacies on the internet, it goes to our whole epistemological framework. Why do we trust some claims but not others? Might there be a reason to be skeptical of or completely distrust one claim until it is corroborated by another source? I would argue that there is, in many cases, depending on both the nature of the claim and the history of the person making it. To that end, I'm sure you agree such a thing is necessary in the legal system, for instance, wouldn't you?

lstodd 8y ago
In the framework of science one does not trust. One determines if the result can be reproduced. As in, if a postulated hypothesis does not contradict any observable facts, it stays a hypothesis, a possible foundation of a theory. If it does contradict the same, it becomes a false hypothesis and is discarded. This is science, not law or anything else. It does not and can not rely on trust or perceptions of authority.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  There is a clear and distinct difference between how science should and must operate within science, and the epistemological standards by which we must operate day to day in judging the quality of science, as we are non-scientists. At some point, as even Bertrand Russel was aware, we must depend on two very unreliable mechanisms: memory and testimony. We cannot prove the physical laws of the universe every time we do science, and we cannot re-do every experiment of a paper before we cite it or accept it. One must trust in the framework of science. I'm well aware of how things work (or at least ought to work) in science, but that's totally irrelevant to the point I was making about skepticism of the sources that publish science and who they are funded by. It is especially irrelevant if we are talking about lay people judging research for their own purposes.
- thfuran 8y ago
  >In the framework of science one does not trust. One determines if the result can be reproduced. So anyone who didn't reproduce the study should just leave off commenting?
AndrewKemendo 8y ago
Although it wasn't as explicit as your quote is, the op was certainly arguing that we should be circumspect about the results based primarily on the pedigree of the source. Quacks like a duck.

lstodd 8y ago

In the framework of science one does not trust. One determines if the result can be reproduced. As in, if a postulated hypothesis does not contradict any observable facts, it stays a hypothesis, a possible foundation of a theory. If it does contradict the same, it becomes a false hypothesis and is discarded. This is science, not law or anything else. It does not and can not rely on trust or perceptions of authority.

claudiawerner 8y ago
There is a clear and distinct difference between how science should and must operate within science, and the epistemological standards by which we must operate day to day in judging the quality of science, as we are non-scientists. At some point, as even Bertrand Russel was aware, we must depend on two very unreliable mechanisms: memory and testimony. We cannot prove the physical laws of the universe every time we do science, and we cannot re-do every experiment of a paper before we cite it or accept it. One must trust in the framework of science. I'm well aware of how things work (or at least ought to work) in science, but that's totally irrelevant to the point I was making about skepticism of the sources that publish science and who they are funded by. It is especially irrelevant if we are talking about lay people judging research for their own purposes.
thfuran 8y ago
>In the framework of science one does not trust. One determines if the result can be reproduced. So anyone who didn't reproduce the study should just leave off commenting?

AndrewKemendo 8y ago

Although it wasn't as explicit as your quote is, the op was certainly arguing that we should be circumspect about the results based primarily on the pedigree of the source. Quacks like a duck.