5 ms·
This is an interesting point, though, respectfully, I do still think it's ad homenim. Internet arguments being what they are I don't much care, but I offer my r
by Rayhem 4y ago
This is an interesting point, though, respectfully, I do still think it's ad homenim. Internet arguments being what they are I don't much care, but I offer my reasoning here to better understand your point. OP did not engage with any of the points made, merely offering another term (without any sort of elaboration or definition), and said
> Notice how you had to put index in quotes.
as the thrust of the argument. In saying that, they imply that I, the arguer, 'A' in Bond's article, don't actually know what an index is (so how could I have a cogent argument about 'correct' indexing?). As this is the only argument of merit, it seems as though OP is actually trying to counter the point by suggesting (attacking) something of the arguer (myself).
Now, it may be that this ad homenim is justified -- if I truly don't know what an index is then yes, I probably should not be making claims about them -- but it's still an ad homenim (and, possibly, poor form).
Of course, this is ascribing a lot to 25 words of text with little other context. I would be interested to understand if you see things differently/think I have grossly erred in my analysis.
- ModernMech 4y ago> In saying that, they imply that I, the arguer, 'A' in Bond's article, don't actually know what an index is (so how could I have a cogent argument about 'correct' indexing?). That's not what they are saying. They are saying you know what an index is so well that you correctly put quotes around your usage of the term, because you understood it's not in fact a technically correct usage. Now calling an argument poor form... that's closer to ad hominem.
- coldtea 4y ago>OP did not engage with any of the points made, merely offering another term (without any sort of elaboration or definition), and said Notice how you had to put index in quotes. Yes. That's addressing the point you made. Ad hominem would be: "You're a bad person/you have this or that flaw/etc (unrelated personal stuff)". This is: "You put the index in quotes, because even you know that this is not an index. And in any case, this is not considered an index in math, it's a degree, which is a different thing". I also didn't "merely offered another term", as if I made up some term on my own, or just offered on of several equal alternatives. Instead, I gave the correct math term for the thing described. >In saying that, they imply that I, the arguer, 'A' in Bond's article, don't actually know what an index is (so how could I have a cogent argument about 'correct' indexing?). It would rather imply the opposite: that you know what an index is, and you know that the thing you applied it to, is not an index (which is why it was put in scare quotes).