4 ms·

Isn't this the kind of argument that Paul Graham charcterizes as "ad hominem" and usually gets voted down on Hacker News? Don't get me wrong, personally I thin

by jdp23 15y ago

Isn't this the kind of argument that Paul Graham charcterizes as "ad hominem" and usually gets voted down on Hacker News? Don't get me wrong, personally I think it's very valid to bring up and important to keep in mind while reading their article. But it seems like a double standard to me.

dexen 15y ago
Zed Shaw (yes, that Zed) has a good text on `ad hominem' and similar in this blog post: http://sheddingbikes.com/posts/1293530004.html http://sheddingbikes.com/posts/1293530004.html and the relevant HN discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2045120 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2045120
- jokermatt999 15y ago
  Basically, I only consider something "ad hominem" if the flaws pointed out are irrelevant to what is being said. I think background is relevant when someone is presenting something as a fact that may not be (like the statistics in this post). When background is irrelevant is when it's used as an attack on someone's logic. Even if it's Stalin saying "Murder is wrong, because kills someone", it doesn't matter that he himself was a mass murderer. It would make him a hypocrite, and a terrible person, but his logic still stands by himself. On an unrelated note, I liked your (unintentional?) subtle humor of pointing out who wrote the article on ad hominem.
jeffreymcmanus 15y ago
Paying attention to the credibility of a source is not even in the same universe as an ad hominem attack.
- jdp23 15y ago
  Look at Paul's example that I posted above
walexander 15y ago
Sometimes people tend to throw around logical fallacies a bit too much. In the legal system it's perfectly acceptable to bring up such an ad hominem argument: motive. No one should be convicted on motive alone, however it does frame the interpretation of facts in a certain way. In this particular case we have a seemingly sensationalist article, along with some suspect data collection, and then a large jump from correlation -> causation about nuclear fallout. Once it is seen that the authors have a vested interest in damning nuclear power, it's much easier to draw conclusions about what's going on or to increase scrutiny considering the impartial nature of the researchers.
ahoyhere 15y ago
Motive is incredibly important. Saying someone has a reason to be biased is not ad hominem. Saying they're a fucking hippie is.
- fleitz 15y ago
  Totally agree with you, the thing I don't understand is why bias is so important, everyone is biased because people rarely talk about things in which they are disinterested.
- jdp23 15y ago
  From "How to Disagree"'s definition of Ad Hominem: For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond: Of course he would say that. He's a senator. This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator? http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  It's absolutely an ad hominem and a logical fallacy. The study itself is given. We can evaluate it without any knowledge whatsoever of the authors. The only time such a claim is not an ad hominem is when the target of the ad hominem is arguing from authority rather than from facts. Not ad hominem: "I'm a godlike scientist and I'm certain X is true. Trust me." -> "No, he's a poopie head. Don't trust him." In this case, the only reason we believe the speaker is because we believe him to be a godlike scientist. If he is not, we have little reason to believe him. Ad hominem: "Here is a study. The methodology and data are available. It claims X." -> "Don't trust him, he's a poopie head." In this case, the poopie-headed nature of the speaker is irrelevant. His methodology is either valid or invalid. The ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy in this case.

by jdp23 15y ago

dexen 15y ago

Zed Shaw (yes, that Zed) has a good text on `ad hominem' and similar in this blog post: http://sheddingbikes.com/posts/1293530004.html http://sheddingbikes.com/posts/1293530004.html and the relevant HN discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2045120 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2045120

jokermatt999 15y ago
Basically, I only consider something "ad hominem" if the flaws pointed out are irrelevant to what is being said. I think background is relevant when someone is presenting something as a fact that may not be (like the statistics in this post). When background is irrelevant is when it's used as an attack on someone's logic. Even if it's Stalin saying "Murder is wrong, because kills someone", it doesn't matter that he himself was a mass murderer. It would make him a hypocrite, and a terrible person, but his logic still stands by himself. On an unrelated note, I liked your (unintentional?) subtle humor of pointing out who wrote the article on ad hominem.

jeffreymcmanus 15y ago

Paying attention to the credibility of a source is not even in the same universe as an ad hominem attack.

jdp23 15y ago
Look at Paul's example that I posted above

walexander 15y ago

Sometimes people tend to throw around logical fallacies a bit too much. In the legal system it's perfectly acceptable to bring up such an ad hominem argument: motive. No one should be convicted on motive alone, however it does frame the interpretation of facts in a certain way. In this particular case we have a seemingly sensationalist article, along with some suspect data collection, and then a large jump from correlation -> causation about nuclear fallout. Once it is seen that the authors have a vested interest in damning nuclear power, it's much easier to draw conclusions about what's going on or to increase scrutiny considering the impartial nature of the researchers.

ahoyhere 15y ago

Motive is incredibly important. Saying someone has a reason to be biased is not ad hominem. Saying they're a fucking hippie is.

fleitz 15y ago
Totally agree with you, the thing I don't understand is why bias is so important, everyone is biased because people rarely talk about things in which they are disinterested.
jdp23 15y ago
From "How to Disagree"'s definition of Ad Hominem: For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond: Of course he would say that. He's a senator. This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator? http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
yummyfajitas 15y ago
It's absolutely an ad hominem and a logical fallacy. The study itself is given. We can evaluate it without any knowledge whatsoever of the authors. The only time such a claim is not an ad hominem is when the target of the ad hominem is arguing from authority rather than from facts. Not ad hominem: "I'm a godlike scientist and I'm certain X is true. Trust me." -> "No, he's a poopie head. Don't trust him." In this case, the only reason we believe the speaker is because we believe him to be a godlike scientist. If he is not, we have little reason to believe him. Ad hominem: "Here is a study. The methodology and data are available. It claims X." -> "Don't trust him, he's a poopie head." In this case, the poopie-headed nature of the speaker is irrelevant. His methodology is either valid or invalid. The ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy in this case.