3 ms·

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

• 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.