2 ms·

Citing yourself and a paper that isn't published or peer-reviewed puts you at exactly the same level of evidence that you have expressed such disdain for. The

by ColanR 6y ago

Citing yourself and a paper that isn't published or peer-reviewed puts you at exactly the same level of evidence that you have expressed such disdain for. The definition of mental illness has nothing to do with whether what you said is an ad homenim. If you were to diagnose someone with a relevant mental illness, and then have a conversation with them which brought their conspiratorial ideas to your attention for the first time, then saying their conspiratorial talk was the result of a mental illness would be legitimate. However, to have a conversation with someone, hear them theorize the existence of a conspiracy, and then conclude they must be part of a set of people with a mental deficiency? That is absolutely an ad homenim. So, again: I don't think it's fair to conclude there's a mental health defect in people more skeptical of the status quo.

austincheney 6y ago
If you need a more expanded definition that otherwise says much the same things try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder#Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder#Definition Diagnosing somebody with a broken arm is not a personal attack and neither should be a mental health diagnosis. > I don't think it's fair Life isn't fair. Fairness is a subject best left to small children and courts of law. To address your concern though, evidence is not about agreement.
- ColanR 6y ago
  > If you need a more expanded definition Logically speaking, we could be talking about how belief in conspiracy theory is affected by mental deficiency, a preference for apple pie, or a broken arm. Giving me a definition of 'thing-that-is-bad' is irrelevant to its use as a potential ad homenim. And as I said - if you already have a diagnosis of the person, then feel free to mention it as a point against their theory of a conspiracy. But if you do not already have that diagnosis, then claiming the theory implies a mental deficiency is absolutely an ad homenim against the theory. The order of the cause and effect matters. I think you mistook my use of the word "fair". I was using the first definition from merriam-webster: "marked by impartiality and honesty." Maybe I should just keep using "intellectually honest" since that appears to cause less confusion. We do agree on your other point, though, that "evidence is not about agreement." Maybe I should use the phrase 'theorize about the existence of a conspiracy' instead of 'skeptical of the status quo'. With that addressed: I don't think it's intellectually honest to conclude there's a mental health defect in people who theorize about the existence of a conspiracy.

by ColanR 6y ago

austincheney 6y ago

If you need a more expanded definition that otherwise says much the same things try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder#Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder#Definition Diagnosing somebody with a broken arm is not a personal attack and neither should be a mental health diagnosis. > I don't think it's fair Life isn't fair. Fairness is a subject best left to small children and courts of law. To address your concern though, evidence is not about agreement.

ColanR 6y ago
> If you need a more expanded definition Logically speaking, we could be talking about how belief in conspiracy theory is affected by mental deficiency, a preference for apple pie, or a broken arm. Giving me a definition of 'thing-that-is-bad' is irrelevant to its use as a potential ad homenim. And as I said - if you already have a diagnosis of the person, then feel free to mention it as a point against their theory of a conspiracy. But if you do not already have that diagnosis, then claiming the theory implies a mental deficiency is absolutely an ad homenim against the theory. The order of the cause and effect matters. I think you mistook my use of the word "fair". I was using the first definition from merriam-webster: "marked by impartiality and honesty." Maybe I should just keep using "intellectually honest" since that appears to cause less confusion. We do agree on your other point, though, that "evidence is not about agreement." Maybe I should use the phrase 'theorize about the existence of a conspiracy' instead of 'skeptical of the status quo'. With that addressed: I don't think it's intellectually honest to conclude there's a mental health defect in people who theorize about the existence of a conspiracy.