6 ms·

Ad hominem

by JonoW 15y ago

Ad hominem

rfrey 15y ago
<blush> It's true, it is. This is a tangent, but an honest question. The biases and agenda of an argument's author are often essential to evaluating the argument. In the human world, a person would be pretty naive to not "consider the source". Is it always invalid in written discourse to raise the issue of the author's background, or is there a way to do it that isn't ad hominem?
- JonoW 15y ago
  Of course it's valid to consider the source, but you need to back it up, show that it's influencing his opinion unfairly. You may be right, maybe he is just favouring MS products, but then show why his comparison is wrong, or why he is ignoring better alternatives, something at least.
- VMG 15y ago
  Ad hominem only describes the logical fallacy of saying "the argument X put forward by person P is wrong because of some property of person P" You didn't make that sort of claim, therefore it really isn't an ad hominem attack
- St-Clock 15y ago
  This might not be fair in dialectic, but I assure you that attacking the ethos of an opponent in rhetoric is fair game. It can be tricky if you only focus on that though because it does not make the audience believe more in your point... But of course, forget about this silly rhetoric thing, Hacker News is all about pure logic :-)
zeemonkee 15y ago
So, if you read an article saying "Hire an SEO consultant today to improve your site visibility x100" and the author happens to be an SEO consultant, it would be an ad hominem to point this fact out ?
- JonoW 15y ago
  It would be ad hominem if you called it a shit or untrue article just because you dislike SEO consultants. It may be a shit or untrue article, but then say why.
- lt 15y ago
  ad hominem: his argument is invalid because he is a SEO consultant. not ad hominem: his argument is invalid because [reason]. he ignores [reason] because he is a SEO consultant.
  - zeemonkee 15y ago
    Ideally, sure. But suppose I don't know anything about SEO. How would I judge if the article is bullshit or not ? If, however, I see "x is an SEO consultant" then I would at least suspect that the author is trying to sell me something rather than inform me.
    - lt 15y ago
      Sure. But it is still ad hominem regardless.
  - parfe 15y ago
    Is this high school debate class? Ad hominem might get you docked points in a competition but purposely blinding yourself to someone's motivations is retarded. The author took the time to type up some scarcely camouflaged ad copy and I think asking Why is legitimate and it should certainly color the interpretation of the information he is presenting.
parfe 15y ago
So? Motivation matters and it shows in his content. I can trust that someone who profits directly from the Microsoft ecosystem will tell me to use Microsoft products. This article is really two parts. 1) Why he is switching away from DropBox. Fair points, but none of it is new information that we haven't seen posted here 20 times the week the security vulnerability occurred. 2) Why he is switching to Live Mesh. This is an advertisement. It is not informative, it does not compare other syncing products, it does not add anything beyond the Live Mesh marketing information. It isn't even a review of Live Mesh
- JonoW 15y ago
  At least you're arguing the points of the article :) I haven't used either product so I don't have an opinion on whether he's talking BS or not...
  - parfe 15y ago
    I guess? It was a waste of my time, but you seem to be defending ad copy because pointing out the guy is a microsoft evangelist is somehow not useful information http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott in fact, if you read his posting history I think who he is severely tarnishes anything he writes.
    - JonoW 15y ago
      I'm def not saying people shouldn't point it out, I just think people shouldn't base their entire opinion on the fact that he's an MS evangelist.

Ad hominem

by JonoW 15y ago

Ad hominem

rfrey 15y ago

<blush> It's true, it is. This is a tangent, but an honest question. The biases and agenda of an argument's author are often essential to evaluating the argument. In the human world, a person would be pretty naive to not "consider the source". Is it always invalid in written discourse to raise the issue of the author's background, or is there a way to do it that isn't ad hominem?

JonoW 15y ago
Of course it's valid to consider the source, but you need to back it up, show that it's influencing his opinion unfairly. You may be right, maybe he is just favouring MS products, but then show why his comparison is wrong, or why he is ignoring better alternatives, something at least.
VMG 15y ago
Ad hominem only describes the logical fallacy of saying "the argument X put forward by person P is wrong because of some property of person P" You didn't make that sort of claim, therefore it really isn't an ad hominem attack
St-Clock 15y ago
This might not be fair in dialectic, but I assure you that attacking the ethos of an opponent in rhetoric is fair game. It can be tricky if you only focus on that though because it does not make the audience believe more in your point... But of course, forget about this silly rhetoric thing, Hacker News is all about pure logic :-)

zeemonkee 15y ago

So, if you read an article saying "Hire an SEO consultant today to improve your site visibility x100" and the author happens to be an SEO consultant, it would be an ad hominem to point this fact out ?

JonoW 15y ago
It would be ad hominem if you called it a shit or untrue article just because you dislike SEO consultants. It may be a shit or untrue article, but then say why.
lt 15y ago
ad hominem: his argument is invalid because he is a SEO consultant. not ad hominem: his argument is invalid because [reason]. he ignores [reason] because he is a SEO consultant.
- zeemonkee 15y ago
  Ideally, sure. But suppose I don't know anything about SEO. How would I judge if the article is bullshit or not ? If, however, I see "x is an SEO consultant" then I would at least suspect that the author is trying to sell me something rather than inform me.
  - lt 15y ago
    Sure. But it is still ad hominem regardless.
- parfe 15y ago
  Is this high school debate class? Ad hominem might get you docked points in a competition but purposely blinding yourself to someone's motivations is retarded. The author took the time to type up some scarcely camouflaged ad copy and I think asking Why is legitimate and it should certainly color the interpretation of the information he is presenting.

parfe 15y ago

So? Motivation matters and it shows in his content. I can trust that someone who profits directly from the Microsoft ecosystem will tell me to use Microsoft products. This article is really two parts. 1) Why he is switching away from DropBox. Fair points, but none of it is new information that we haven't seen posted here 20 times the week the security vulnerability occurred. 2) Why he is switching to Live Mesh. This is an advertisement. It is not informative, it does not compare other syncing products, it does not add anything beyond the Live Mesh marketing information. It isn't even a review of Live Mesh

JonoW 15y ago
At least you're arguing the points of the article :) I haven't used either product so I don't have an opinion on whether he's talking BS or not...
- parfe 15y ago
  I guess? It was a waste of my time, but you seem to be defending ad copy because pointing out the guy is a microsoft evangelist is somehow not useful information http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott in fact, if you read his posting history I think who he is severely tarnishes anything he writes.
  - JonoW 15y ago
    I'm def not saying people shouldn't point it out, I just think people shouldn't base their entire opinion on the fact that he's an MS evangelist.