3 ms·

The comment above is a little mean, but I don't think it's ad hominem to note the author's lack of specific qualification in epidemiology or infectious disease.

The comment above is a little mean, but I don't think it's ad hominem to note the author's lack of specific qualification in epidemiology or infectious disease. When I am a non-expert in a complicated subject, I want the advice of experts. When I go to my general practitioner, I want to know they have a certificate that says they went to medical school. When I need open-heart surgery, I want to know the doctor is a cardiothoracic surgeon. When I read a doctor's take on coronavirus in the WSJ, it would be a plus if they were an expert in infectious disease or epidemiology. It's kind of sad that the nation's 2nd highest circulation paper can't find someone with more expertise in this area. Amplifying non-expert advice is dangerous, just like having an orthodontist try to do heart surgery is dangerous. C.f. Scott Atlas, of course.

piker 6y ago
> I don't think it's ad hominem to note the author's lack of specific qualification in epidemiology or infectious disease If the purpose of such a note is to attack the validity of the author's position, this is what ad hominem means.
- jfengel 6y ago
  The only reason we're discussing this author's opinion is because they appear in a prestigious newspaper. The world is full of opinions, and we choose some to discuss based on heuristics. The appearance of this article on HN is effectively an argument from authority -- the newspaper's, not the author's. Without that, we wouldn't even be talking about it. Undercutting their arguments is time consuming, but pointing out that they don't have the background to be making their claims -- and that they're appearing on an editorial page famous for putting politics over facts -- is sufficient for many people to say, "Let's stop considering this and go talk about something else." Those who want to continue the argument may, of course. But meeting an argument from authority with the exact opposite argument (truthful, but ad hominem) is a convenient shortcut for those who don't want to get sucked into that.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  In pure deductive logic, sure. But nobody operates like that. Bayesian reasoning allows us to decide to listen to one group of people and ignore another based on our priors even if it isn’t purely valid deductive logic.
spookthesunset 6y ago
Please tell me which epidemiologist "expert" has any expertise in public policy, mental health, business, cancer research, childhood education, restaurant ownership, haircare, finance, law, etc. Because these lockdowns affect all of those things. Shouldn't "experts" in those fields have a voice in all this too? Why is the only expert that is allowed to have an opinion worthy of being listened to the esteemed epidemiologist "expert"? Public health is more than the eradication of a specific form of disease, you know. Perhaps getting input from other experts might promote a more balanced take on how to deal with this pandemic. And hell... plenty of the "expert" doomsday figures aren't epidemiologists at all and people have no problem reposting their announcements. For example if Andy Slavitt of Eric Feigl-Ding wrote an opinion piece on how we should have a ultra-hard lockdown for 6 months, nobody would call into question their expertise at all despite neither of them knowing anything about epidemiology or infectious disease. By the way, I find it curios that absolutely none of the "experts" we are told to exclusively listen to have lost a single paycheck the entire 11 months this has been going on. Funny, that. Wonder what they would recommend if they stopped getting paid and had to spend two months on hold with unemployment trying to get a human to talk to.

piker 6y ago

> I don't think it's ad hominem to note the author's lack of specific qualification in epidemiology or infectious disease If the purpose of such a note is to attack the validity of the author's position, this is what ad hominem means.

jfengel 6y ago
The only reason we're discussing this author's opinion is because they appear in a prestigious newspaper. The world is full of opinions, and we choose some to discuss based on heuristics. The appearance of this article on HN is effectively an argument from authority -- the newspaper's, not the author's. Without that, we wouldn't even be talking about it. Undercutting their arguments is time consuming, but pointing out that they don't have the background to be making their claims -- and that they're appearing on an editorial page famous for putting politics over facts -- is sufficient for many people to say, "Let's stop considering this and go talk about something else." Those who want to continue the argument may, of course. But meeting an argument from authority with the exact opposite argument (truthful, but ad hominem) is a convenient shortcut for those who don't want to get sucked into that.
UncleMeat 6y ago
In pure deductive logic, sure. But nobody operates like that. Bayesian reasoning allows us to decide to listen to one group of people and ignore another based on our priors even if it isn’t purely valid deductive logic.

spookthesunset 6y ago

Please tell me which epidemiologist "expert" has any expertise in public policy, mental health, business, cancer research, childhood education, restaurant ownership, haircare, finance, law, etc. Because these lockdowns affect all of those things. Shouldn't "experts" in those fields have a voice in all this too? Why is the only expert that is allowed to have an opinion worthy of being listened to the esteemed epidemiologist "expert"? Public health is more than the eradication of a specific form of disease, you know. Perhaps getting input from other experts might promote a more balanced take on how to deal with this pandemic. And hell... plenty of the "expert" doomsday figures aren't epidemiologists at all and people have no problem reposting their announcements. For example if Andy Slavitt of Eric Feigl-Ding wrote an opinion piece on how we should have a ultra-hard lockdown for 6 months, nobody would call into question their expertise at all despite neither of them knowing anything about epidemiology or infectious disease. By the way, I find it curios that absolutely none of the "experts" we are told to exclusively listen to have lost a single paycheck the entire 11 months this has been going on. Funny, that. Wonder what they would recommend if they stopped getting paid and had to spend two months on hold with unemployment trying to get a human to talk to.