5 ms·

Let's break this down. 1. Is there or is there not a potential conflict of interest in the CEO of a "space traffic control" company being quoted as saying that

Let's break this down. 1. Is there or is there not a potential conflict of interest in the CEO of a "space traffic control" company being quoted as saying that "space traffic" is "out of control" and in dire need of solutions like the ones his company presumably sells or plans to sell? Why or why not? 2. Do you believe, generally, that the presence of potential conflicts of interest can be a valid and useful heuristic for evaluating the objectivity and trustworthiness of claims, especially unsubstantiated and relatively subjective claims like this one? Why or why not? 3. If yes, why not in this case?

CarelessExpert 5y ago
> Do you believe, generally, that the presence of potential conflicts of interest can be a valid and useful heuristic for evaluating the objectivity and trustworthiness of claims In this particular case it simply doesn't matter. The data exists. Engage with that, as have many other comments in this thread. An ad hominem, in this case, is just a mental shortcut to get to the answer you've already picked (i.e., that SpaceX is faultless).
- caconym_ 5y ago
  > An ad hominem, in this case, is just a mental shortcut to get to the answer you've already picked (i.e., that SpaceX is faultless). After so much complaining about my "empty" ad hominem "attacks", it's quite ironic to see you putting words in my mouth (thoughts in my head?) that do not fairly or accurately represent anything I've said here. I am not interested in putting words in your mouth, nor in responding to low quality arguments driven by misrepresentations, rationalizations, and personal attacks. I asked you some simple questions in an attempt to find common ground on the existence of conflicts of interest and their general relevance, and if you can't or won't answer them straightforwardly, there is nothing left for me to say. It's up to you.

CarelessExpert 5y ago

> Do you believe, generally, that the presence of potential conflicts of interest can be a valid and useful heuristic for evaluating the objectivity and trustworthiness of claims In this particular case it simply doesn't matter. The data exists. Engage with that, as have many other comments in this thread. An ad hominem, in this case, is just a mental shortcut to get to the answer you've already picked (i.e., that SpaceX is faultless).

caconym_ 5y ago
> An ad hominem, in this case, is just a mental shortcut to get to the answer you've already picked (i.e., that SpaceX is faultless). After so much complaining about my "empty" ad hominem "attacks", it's quite ironic to see you putting words in my mouth (thoughts in my head?) that do not fairly or accurately represent anything I've said here. I am not interested in putting words in your mouth, nor in responding to low quality arguments driven by misrepresentations, rationalizations, and personal attacks. I asked you some simple questions in an attempt to find common ground on the existence of conflicts of interest and their general relevance, and if you can't or won't answer them straightforwardly, there is nothing left for me to say. It's up to you.