4 ms·

I honestly don't know how to feel about Tomas Pueyo. He's very opinionated about what he writes, and has gained good readership and influencer status on this t

I honestly don't know how to feel about Tomas Pueyo. He's very opinionated about what he writes, and has gained good readership and influencer status on this topic. It's clear in his writings that he fancies himself as an "amateur of expert insight". He may be 100% correct. He may also be 100% wrong. It's hard to tell (let alone without invoking the conditional fallacy). However, the most lasting impression I have of him is when he was invited in one of those "both sides" TV programmes in the UK on the basis that his "Hammer and the Dance" blogpost at the time became very popular. He was invited to debate with a renowned epidemiologist, who was part of the COVID-19 team advising the UK government at the time, and who was there to discuss the rationale for the policy after copious simulations by his research team. The epidemiologist was considered an expert and leading figure in his field. Meanwhile, Pueyo's self-described title on his blogpage at the time was "data visualisation expert" or something along those lines. Now, like I said, he may be 100% correct (or not). This is not about making an "ad verecundium/hominem" argument. But all I remember from that TV debate is that his main argument tactic on TV was effectively interrupting all the time by saying "wtf", "people will die because of you" and visibly eyerolling and audibly sighing an awful lot, without offering much counterargument except by referring to his blogpost and the "obviousness of his claims". All this to the dismay and visible frustration of the epidemiologist who was trying to remain civil, objective, and doing his best to remain calm, relay the science as clearly as he could, while trying to avoid unnecessary panic and drama. Honestly watching it made me feel like you had just pitched the dalai lama in a debate against trump. Pueyo has now changed his blogpage's tagline from "data visulisation expert" (or whatever it used to be) to "Understand the biggest problems and how to solve them". Forgive me if that doesn't sound as vague and grandiose to you as it does to me, but at best it doesn't come across to me as very humble from someone who, at the very least, is not particularly qualified for that description (then again, who is). So, good on him for writing these blogposts and taking a stand, but while he may (or may not) be 100% correct (if there is such a thing), after that TV performance I witnessed, I'm taking his (otherwise professionally edited) blogposts with a large pinch of salt.

zzzeek 5y ago
ive never heard of this author and i thought it was a good blog post. your post is for better or worse the definition of ad-hominem and also black-and-white thinking (100% right or 100% wrong). In the US, we are in a dangerous place where social distancing and masking have basically stopped, and with a much more contagious variant like Delta we're defintiely going to have a much bigger problem again in the coming months. I didn't see anything in this article that struck me as counterproductive towards preparing for the continuation of the virus.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  I've never heard of him either, and clicked around until I found some background on him. He has no medical or health care related education or experience. He's a tech guy with a blog.
- tpoacher 5y ago
  Very well, I'll rephrase. Yes, it was a good blog post. > "this is the definition of ad-hominem" It is not. Ad hominem would be "his argument is false because he is [personal attack]". Ad-verecundium would be the specific case where the personal attack is "he's not an expert in the subject". Cautioning against grandiose claims by pointing out the author has made unverifiable grandiose claims before, which are objectively beyond their expertise, and was unable to defend them or reason properly against a peer with known expertise, is not an ad hominem. It's just skepticism. Having said that, good for him for doing his bit and writing the blog post. I've done far less. > also black-and-white thinking (100% right or 100% wrong): I think you are misreading this, so I apologise. I'm not advocating "splitting". The point of the "he may be wrong or right" part is that the only way to evaluate his claims of "what a public figure should do" etc, is via the conditional fallacy, i.e. "This is the correct course of action because IF you did the opposite, THIS would have happened". This is effectively an unverifiable claim, which is why, as a form of argument, it is fallacious. His claim in absolute terms, however, may in fact be true. Or false. We can never know. Now obviously, you might say, "but he provides evidence for his opinion on what a public person should do". True. But here is where the earlier argument comes in. It's worth keeping in mind that this is a blog post, by a non-expert, who has shown inexperience against experts previously, and where he is free to take creative liberties to promote his view, as he has done in the past. It is not a scientific article that has undergone peer review, nor is it a disinterested exploration of the literature. It's purely an opinion piece (albeit a well-meant and well-presented one) backed by the evidence and visualisations he feels make his point and linear narrative best. Which is absolutely fine for a blogpost. Kudos to him.
effie 5y ago
I got the same opinion just from the article. So sure of himself, giving advice to everybody and blasting alarming attitude, while real epidemiologists and doctors that I know are much less sure about predictions and almost never beat the drum of alarm. He's probably a case of Dunning-Kruger effect.
trts 5y ago
This is a lesson I don't see the general population learning very well over the past 5-7 years. Just because somebody throws a tantrum over their stance about a moral quandary does not make them better informed about its resolutions. And often there are no resolutions proposed anyway, which can be hard to notice beneath the sound and fury. It also seems to be often the most natural approach taken by people who make a living from gaming the attention economy. It isn't about the merits of one idea or another but the engagement it generates from outrage, self-righteousness or other reactionary emotions.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  The "solution" proposed is often "do what I want, and ignore that it doesn't solve the moral quandary".
Leary 5y ago
This was the epidemiologist who suggested Herd Immunity as a strategy for the UK? Then regardless of how weakly he presented himself on TV, Pueyo was more right than that epidemiologist who civilly advocated for a policy that would've killed hundreds of thousands.
Barrin92 5y ago
>But all I remember from that TV debate is that his main argument tactic on TV was effectively interrupting all the time by saying "wtf", "people will die because of you" Which was an apporpriate tactic given that the United Kingdom was one of the hardest hit countries in Europe and the entire world. Visible anger in the face of complete and abject failure of an expert class and in the face of a rapidly worsening pandemic was an entirely reasonable reaction and the situation was indeed obvious to anyone who didn't have his head up his own ass. You might remember all of this happened against the backdrop of a government that was willing to 'let the bodies pile up' to 'keep the economy going'. The absolute veneration of "civility" as if being civil actually is worth anything in the face of tens of thousands dying as a result of hesistancy is mad. Any sane person should have been ragiung.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  No, that is not an appropriate tactic; not in real life and 10x more not on TV. It may come as a shock to you, but people do not like having their viewpoint challenged by such tactics. It's not very persuasive; if anything it entrenches opposition. I haven't seen the debate you are referring to so I won't say much more, but there is a l a r g e space between being civil and "interrupting all the time by saying "wtf", "people will die because of you". Disclaimer: I don't think this guy is legit, based on his cherry-picking of numbers and facts, and his over the top fear-mongering style.
- paulddraper 5y ago
  > government that was willing to 'let the bodies pile up' to 'keep the economy going' First, the UK mortality rate was only somewhat higher in 2020. In fact, it was lower than it had been in any year before 2009. Second, even if that were true, you vastly overestimate the efficacy of such tactics in persuading people.

zzzeek 5y ago

ive never heard of this author and i thought it was a good blog post. your post is for better or worse the definition of ad-hominem and also black-and-white thinking (100% right or 100% wrong). In the US, we are in a dangerous place where social distancing and masking have basically stopped, and with a much more contagious variant like Delta we're defintiely going to have a much bigger problem again in the coming months. I didn't see anything in this article that struck me as counterproductive towards preparing for the continuation of the virus.

throwawayboise 5y ago
I've never heard of him either, and clicked around until I found some background on him. He has no medical or health care related education or experience. He's a tech guy with a blog.
tpoacher 5y ago
Very well, I'll rephrase. Yes, it was a good blog post. > "this is the definition of ad-hominem" It is not. Ad hominem would be "his argument is false because he is [personal attack]". Ad-verecundium would be the specific case where the personal attack is "he's not an expert in the subject". Cautioning against grandiose claims by pointing out the author has made unverifiable grandiose claims before, which are objectively beyond their expertise, and was unable to defend them or reason properly against a peer with known expertise, is not an ad hominem. It's just skepticism. Having said that, good for him for doing his bit and writing the blog post. I've done far less. > also black-and-white thinking (100% right or 100% wrong): I think you are misreading this, so I apologise. I'm not advocating "splitting". The point of the "he may be wrong or right" part is that the only way to evaluate his claims of "what a public figure should do" etc, is via the conditional fallacy, i.e. "This is the correct course of action because IF you did the opposite, THIS would have happened". This is effectively an unverifiable claim, which is why, as a form of argument, it is fallacious. His claim in absolute terms, however, may in fact be true. Or false. We can never know. Now obviously, you might say, "but he provides evidence for his opinion on what a public person should do". True. But here is where the earlier argument comes in. It's worth keeping in mind that this is a blog post, by a non-expert, who has shown inexperience against experts previously, and where he is free to take creative liberties to promote his view, as he has done in the past. It is not a scientific article that has undergone peer review, nor is it a disinterested exploration of the literature. It's purely an opinion piece (albeit a well-meant and well-presented one) backed by the evidence and visualisations he feels make his point and linear narrative best. Which is absolutely fine for a blogpost. Kudos to him.

effie 5y ago

I got the same opinion just from the article. So sure of himself, giving advice to everybody and blasting alarming attitude, while real epidemiologists and doctors that I know are much less sure about predictions and almost never beat the drum of alarm. He's probably a case of Dunning-Kruger effect.

trts 5y ago

This is a lesson I don't see the general population learning very well over the past 5-7 years. Just because somebody throws a tantrum over their stance about a moral quandary does not make them better informed about its resolutions. And often there are no resolutions proposed anyway, which can be hard to notice beneath the sound and fury. It also seems to be often the most natural approach taken by people who make a living from gaming the attention economy. It isn't about the merits of one idea or another but the engagement it generates from outrage, self-righteousness or other reactionary emotions.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
The "solution" proposed is often "do what I want, and ignore that it doesn't solve the moral quandary".

Leary 5y ago

This was the epidemiologist who suggested Herd Immunity as a strategy for the UK? Then regardless of how weakly he presented himself on TV, Pueyo was more right than that epidemiologist who civilly advocated for a policy that would've killed hundreds of thousands.

Barrin92 5y ago

>But all I remember from that TV debate is that his main argument tactic on TV was effectively interrupting all the time by saying "wtf", "people will die because of you" Which was an apporpriate tactic given that the United Kingdom was one of the hardest hit countries in Europe and the entire world. Visible anger in the face of complete and abject failure of an expert class and in the face of a rapidly worsening pandemic was an entirely reasonable reaction and the situation was indeed obvious to anyone who didn't have his head up his own ass. You might remember all of this happened against the backdrop of a government that was willing to 'let the bodies pile up' to 'keep the economy going'. The absolute veneration of "civility" as if being civil actually is worth anything in the face of tens of thousands dying as a result of hesistancy is mad. Any sane person should have been ragiung.

mandmandam 5y ago
No, that is not an appropriate tactic; not in real life and 10x more not on TV. It may come as a shock to you, but people do not like having their viewpoint challenged by such tactics. It's not very persuasive; if anything it entrenches opposition. I haven't seen the debate you are referring to so I won't say much more, but there is a l a r g e space between being civil and "interrupting all the time by saying "wtf", "people will die because of you". Disclaimer: I don't think this guy is legit, based on his cherry-picking of numbers and facts, and his over the top fear-mongering style.
paulddraper 5y ago
> government that was willing to 'let the bodies pile up' to 'keep the economy going' First, the UK mortality rate was only somewhat higher in 2020. In fact, it was lower than it had been in any year before 2009. Second, even if that were true, you vastly overestimate the efficacy of such tactics in persuading people.