3 ms·
> 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 a
by 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 agoThe 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 agoIn 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.