4 ms·

"ad hominem (accusing the scientists of being motivated by something other pursuit of truth...)" Is it your assertion that scientists are not motivated by some

by bugsy 15y ago

"ad hominem (accusing the scientists of being motivated by something other pursuit of truth...)" Is it your assertion that scientists are not motivated by something other than the pursuit of truth? Seems you are saying those who might think that are engaging in name-calling rather than simple observation of known facts. If this is your assertion (it is, but I'm giving you a chance to back down), please justify with evidence your claim that scientists are not motivated by something other than the pursuit of truth.

rauljara 15y ago
You clearly do not understand ad hominem. An example of an ad hominem attack: "You are on the internet, therefore you are wrong." The premise "you are on the internet" is clearly true. That the conclusion has anything to do with the premise is the fallacy. A similar fallacy would be to say that because prominent global warming skeptic Frederick Seitz's institute received $630,000 from Exxon Mobil, his ideas should be dismissed. That would be a fallacy. His research should be dismissed because it is either un-replicable or based on poor methodology.
- bugsy 15y ago
  Wow, um, not sure now if you're trolling. The example you give is a non-sequitor not an ad-hominem. An ad-hominem is a name-calling attack. A non-sequitor is where the conclusion does not follow from the premise. But none of this addresses the issue of my previous response, it's a distraction. If you wish to proceed further, kindly address the previous points: "Is it your assertion that scientists are not motivated by something other than the pursuit of truth?"
  - IvarTJ 15y ago
    All fallacies are non-sequiturs. From Wikipedia An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. Ad Hominem is not always a fallacy. For instance, it would not be possible to assess a person for a position without considering that person's characterstics. Sometimes we neither have the resources to assess a claim based on anything other than the characteristics of the one who made it.

by bugsy 15y ago

rauljara 15y ago

You clearly do not understand ad hominem. An example of an ad hominem attack: "You are on the internet, therefore you are wrong." The premise "you are on the internet" is clearly true. That the conclusion has anything to do with the premise is the fallacy. A similar fallacy would be to say that because prominent global warming skeptic Frederick Seitz's institute received $630,000 from Exxon Mobil, his ideas should be dismissed. That would be a fallacy. His research should be dismissed because it is either un-replicable or based on poor methodology.

bugsy 15y ago
Wow, um, not sure now if you're trolling. The example you give is a non-sequitor not an ad-hominem. An ad-hominem is a name-calling attack. A non-sequitor is where the conclusion does not follow from the premise. But none of this addresses the issue of my previous response, it's a distraction. If you wish to proceed further, kindly address the previous points: "Is it your assertion that scientists are not motivated by something other than the pursuit of truth?"
- IvarTJ 15y ago
  All fallacies are non-sequiturs. From Wikipedia An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. Ad Hominem is not always a fallacy. For instance, it would not be possible to assess a person for a position without considering that person's characterstics. Sometimes we neither have the resources to assess a claim based on anything other than the characteristics of the one who made it.