5 ms·

Do you have a refutation for the articles's words? Or is this simply an Ad Hominem? Compare and contrast to http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2370547 http://n

Do you have a refutation for the articles's words? Or is this simply an Ad Hominem? Compare and contrast to http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2370547 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2370547, which is just as scornful but also logical.

danilocampos 16y ago
I'm with you, but stand by my claim that if Adam Lisagor had shot an ad for Color, Gruber's tone would be entirely different. Here's another post about a photo-taking application earlier this week: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/03/22/everyday http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/03/22/everyday
- raganwald 16y ago
  Interesting, however I would point out that Gruber isn't reviewing the app, he's reviewing the founder's quoted claim that the app is a data collection play. Personally, I disagree with Gruber: Facebook and Foursquare seem to be evidence that people will gladly give up their personal data in exchange for a "social" experience. But whether Gruber is right or wrong is not the point I was responding to, it's whether Gruber would hypothetically like the app if it was hypothetically bought by Apple. This is irrelevant to what he's saying now. Even if he does like everything Apple does and does hate everything Apple doesn't do, appealing to his bias is the textbook definition of an Ad Hominem: An ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the opponent advocating the premise. If he's wrong, we can attack his argument directly. How can we have a meaningful discussion about what he might say if some hypothetical future acquisition takes place? Worse, what if he's right now and would be wrong if he did change his mind after some hypothetical future acquisition? In that case, dismissing him because of his bias might rob us of a valuable insight.
  - baddox 16y ago
    flyt's comment is not an ad hominem argument, because flyt is not trying to link the validity of the premise (that Color's funding was the result of their data mining potential) to a characteristic of its advocate (Gruber's pattern of Apple apologetics). In fact, the way I read flyt's comment is that flyt actually agrees with Gruber, but is predicting that if Apple were to have something to do with Color, Gruber's cynicism would disappear. Unless I'm misunderstanding flyt, this was in no way an ad hominem argument.
    - ellyagg 16y ago
      Ah, these "that's not ad hominem" comments you read in every single thread that points out ad hominem get so tiresome. It most certainly is ad hominem. The premise of Gruber's post is approximately that, based on the latest information we're learning about it, there's something distasteful about Color or its value proposition to consumers. The original commenter seeks to discredit Gruber's implied argument by suggesting he's an Apple apologist, that his industry analysis is not based on facts at hand but by inherent biases. This is right in the sweet spot of ad hominem. Just read the first few paragraphs of the Wikipedia entry on ad hominem to confirm. Regardless, it's certainly poor form and disappointing to see so highly upvoted.
      - metellus 16y ago
        Except he's not trying to discredit Gruber. He's pointing out that Gruber is able to be unbiased because the product isn't owned by Apple.
        ThomPete 16y ago
        Huh? So when the product is owned by Apple he is unbiased?
        lotharbot 16y ago
        No. The opposite of this.
  - jonursenbach 16y ago
    He already reviewed it, and panned it then as well. http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/03/24/color http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/03/24/color
    - kelnos 16y ago
      "Nice domain name, though." I wonder how much that cost them...
      - chibimagic 16y ago
        $350,000 http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/24/color-com-was-acquired-for-350000-the-domain-name-that-is/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/24/color-com-was-acquired-for-...
- macrael 16y ago
  Besides the fact that those two apps involve the taking of photos, they couldn't be more different. I don't think Gruber's like of one and dislike of the other can be seen as any kind of hypocrisy. I'm also curious what how his response (or others') would have been changed had Lisagor shot an ad for them. But, as a data point, Gruber hasn't linked to at least one of Lisagor's ads. (The 3D one for jawbone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exm981pbrJg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exm981pbrJg)
- jsb 16y ago
  I disagree. Everyday is a part-time collaboration by 4 people that hasn't taken on funding, let alone $41M worth. And Everyday has a business model that doesn't mine data about you: it's $1.99 on the app store. So, I guess it's like Color in that it uses pictures, except that it's different in just about every other way.
  - bugsy 16y ago
    Very cool app.
baddox 16y ago
flyt's comment is certainly an attack on Gruber, but I wouldn't call it an ad hominem argument since flyt isn't attempting to discredit Gruber's reasoning by proposing a flaw in Gruber's character. In fact, I don't think flyt is claiming that this wasn't the reason for Color's funding. flyt seems to merely be noting that, while Gruber sounds cynical and disapproving in this post, Gruber would probably approve of and attempt to justify the product if Apple were to acquire Color.
- raganwald 16y ago
  That had occurred to me, and I was going to suggest that it is semantically equivalent to claiming that John's mother wears army boots. Possibly true, possibly false, but irrelevant and off-topic. However, I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that somebody would suggest that insulting the author in a thread purportedly discussing the author's words is an indirect way of discrediting the words. I could be wrong, in which case I would suggest that such a comment is not contributing to the discussion.
  - baddox 16y ago
    If a comment is not contributing to the discussion, then down-vote it. A non-contributing comment is not the same thing as an ad hominem argument. Also, an attack on someone's character is not the same as an ad hominem argument.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - bugsy 16y ago
      The entirety subthread about "is it ad hominem or not" is useless meta noise that has nothing at all to do with the main post. Folks, please just say no before creating such a subthread, or responding in one. The original very brief comment was related to the main topic and was a fine, if possibly cynical remark. It represented a view that had not been expressed. It was conversational in nature, such as someone might observe during any reasonable discussion of this topic. It did not need several pages of deconstruction. Comment deconstruction and analysis belongs in an academic literary journal, not here. Thanks.
mcantelon 16y ago
The credibility of a source is relevant. If the National Enquirer posts commentary on a matter, you're likely to take it less seriously than commentary from The Economist.
- raganwald 16y ago
  Why? If they write something obviously false, then I can refute it directly. The time I question someone's reputation is when they appeal to authority themselves. For example, if I were to write "I've been in business for twenty years, take it from me that where startups are concerned, _____," then it's perfectly appropriate to point out that I haven't worked in silicon valley. After all, my reputation is part of my argument, so questioning it is questioning my argument. Other than that, if I say something about business, arguing that I boast of being a Socialist says nothing about whether my words about business are useful. If you "take them with a grain of salt," you are the one who may be missing out. This principle is not new to HN. Paul Graham wrote about it explicitly in his essay "How to Disagree:" http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html Have a look at what he has to say about DH0, Name calling, and DH1, Ad hominem. You may not like the National Enquirer, but if they were to write about a startup, it should be possible to disagree with their suppositions without resorting to questioning the piece solely because they published it.
- Rantenki 16y ago
  Actually, I am just plain less likely to read it, but I agree with your premise.

danilocampos 16y ago

I'm with you, but stand by my claim that if Adam Lisagor had shot an ad for Color, Gruber's tone would be entirely different. Here's another post about a photo-taking application earlier this week: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/03/22/everyday http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/03/22/everyday

raganwald 16y ago
Interesting, however I would point out that Gruber isn't reviewing the app, he's reviewing the founder's quoted claim that the app is a data collection play. Personally, I disagree with Gruber: Facebook and Foursquare seem to be evidence that people will gladly give up their personal data in exchange for a "social" experience. But whether Gruber is right or wrong is not the point I was responding to, it's whether Gruber would hypothetically like the app if it was hypothetically bought by Apple. This is irrelevant to what he's saying now. Even if he does like everything Apple does and does hate everything Apple doesn't do, appealing to his bias is the textbook definition of an Ad Hominem: An ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the opponent advocating the premise. If he's wrong, we can attack his argument directly. How can we have a meaningful discussion about what he might say if some hypothetical future acquisition takes place? Worse, what if he's right now and would be wrong if he did change his mind after some hypothetical future acquisition? In that case, dismissing him because of his bias might rob us of a valuable insight.
- baddox 16y ago
  flyt's comment is not an ad hominem argument, because flyt is not trying to link the validity of the premise (that Color's funding was the result of their data mining potential) to a characteristic of its advocate (Gruber's pattern of Apple apologetics). In fact, the way I read flyt's comment is that flyt actually agrees with Gruber, but is predicting that if Apple were to have something to do with Color, Gruber's cynicism would disappear. Unless I'm misunderstanding flyt, this was in no way an ad hominem argument.
  - ellyagg 16y ago
    Ah, these "that's not ad hominem" comments you read in every single thread that points out ad hominem get so tiresome. It most certainly is ad hominem. The premise of Gruber's post is approximately that, based on the latest information we're learning about it, there's something distasteful about Color or its value proposition to consumers. The original commenter seeks to discredit Gruber's implied argument by suggesting he's an Apple apologist, that his industry analysis is not based on facts at hand but by inherent biases. This is right in the sweet spot of ad hominem. Just read the first few paragraphs of the Wikipedia entry on ad hominem to confirm. Regardless, it's certainly poor form and disappointing to see so highly upvoted.
    - metellus 16y ago
      Except he's not trying to discredit Gruber. He's pointing out that Gruber is able to be unbiased because the product isn't owned by Apple.
      - ThomPete 16y ago
        Huh? So when the product is owned by Apple he is unbiased?
        lotharbot 16y ago
        No. The opposite of this.
- jonursenbach 16y ago
  He already reviewed it, and panned it then as well. http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/03/24/color http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/03/24/color
  - kelnos 16y ago
    "Nice domain name, though." I wonder how much that cost them...
    - chibimagic 16y ago
      $350,000 http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/24/color-com-was-acquired-for-350000-the-domain-name-that-is/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/24/color-com-was-acquired-for-...
macrael 16y ago
Besides the fact that those two apps involve the taking of photos, they couldn't be more different. I don't think Gruber's like of one and dislike of the other can be seen as any kind of hypocrisy. I'm also curious what how his response (or others') would have been changed had Lisagor shot an ad for them. But, as a data point, Gruber hasn't linked to at least one of Lisagor's ads. (The 3D one for jawbone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exm981pbrJg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exm981pbrJg)
jsb 16y ago
I disagree. Everyday is a part-time collaboration by 4 people that hasn't taken on funding, let alone $41M worth. And Everyday has a business model that doesn't mine data about you: it's $1.99 on the app store. So, I guess it's like Color in that it uses pictures, except that it's different in just about every other way.
- bugsy 16y ago
  Very cool app.

baddox 16y ago

flyt's comment is certainly an attack on Gruber, but I wouldn't call it an ad hominem argument since flyt isn't attempting to discredit Gruber's reasoning by proposing a flaw in Gruber's character. In fact, I don't think flyt is claiming that this wasn't the reason for Color's funding. flyt seems to merely be noting that, while Gruber sounds cynical and disapproving in this post, Gruber would probably approve of and attempt to justify the product if Apple were to acquire Color.

raganwald 16y ago
That had occurred to me, and I was going to suggest that it is semantically equivalent to claiming that John's mother wears army boots. Possibly true, possibly false, but irrelevant and off-topic. However, I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that somebody would suggest that insulting the author in a thread purportedly discussing the author's words is an indirect way of discrediting the words. I could be wrong, in which case I would suggest that such a comment is not contributing to the discussion.
- baddox 16y ago
  If a comment is not contributing to the discussion, then down-vote it. A non-contributing comment is not the same thing as an ad hominem argument. Also, an attack on someone's character is not the same as an ad hominem argument.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - bugsy 16y ago
    The entirety subthread about "is it ad hominem or not" is useless meta noise that has nothing at all to do with the main post. Folks, please just say no before creating such a subthread, or responding in one. The original very brief comment was related to the main topic and was a fine, if possibly cynical remark. It represented a view that had not been expressed. It was conversational in nature, such as someone might observe during any reasonable discussion of this topic. It did not need several pages of deconstruction. Comment deconstruction and analysis belongs in an academic literary journal, not here. Thanks.

mcantelon 16y ago

The credibility of a source is relevant. If the National Enquirer posts commentary on a matter, you're likely to take it less seriously than commentary from The Economist.

raganwald 16y ago
Why? If they write something obviously false, then I can refute it directly. The time I question someone's reputation is when they appeal to authority themselves. For example, if I were to write "I've been in business for twenty years, take it from me that where startups are concerned, _____," then it's perfectly appropriate to point out that I haven't worked in silicon valley. After all, my reputation is part of my argument, so questioning it is questioning my argument. Other than that, if I say something about business, arguing that I boast of being a Socialist says nothing about whether my words about business are useful. If you "take them with a grain of salt," you are the one who may be missing out. This principle is not new to HN. Paul Graham wrote about it explicitly in his essay "How to Disagree:" http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html Have a look at what he has to say about DH0, Name calling, and DH1, Ad hominem. You may not like the National Enquirer, but if they were to write about a startup, it should be possible to disagree with their suppositions without resorting to questioning the piece solely because they published it.
Rantenki 16y ago
Actually, I am just plain less likely to read it, but I agree with your premise.