4 ms·

> by Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet, opinion contributor important to consider the source here, I think - Gallaudet is on the advisory board [0] of "Americans for

> by Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet, opinion contributor important to consider the source here, I think - Gallaudet is on the advisory board [0] of "Americans for Safe Aerospace", the group founded by Ryan Graves, who was one of the three witnesses who testified in the US House hearing on UFOs last week. one of the other witnesses, David Fravor, is on the organization's "Aircrew Leadership Council". he is emphatically not a disinterested or neutral party here. his relationship with Americans for Safe Aerospace is disclosed at the bottom of the article, but his shared affiliation with 2 of the 3 witnesses at the Congressional hearing is not. 0: https://www.safeaerospace.org/#advisors https://www.safeaerospace.org/#advisors

keepamovin 3y ago
Well I mean who do you expect to be advocating for this? It doesn't exactly ruin his credibility that he's part of it. I think it just enhances his credibility. Come to think about, this point is stupid: it's as if you can say, "This person who wrote this article, has previously written articles having the same views. We need to consider that they are not neutral." Would the assumption of "neutrality" (unrealistic, because is anyone really ever?) change what they're saying? The point I guess is not to ad-hominem and appeal to authority, but to assess the things they say on what they say. This point you're saying makes no sense to me: why should we discard what someone says because they have a stance? Everybody has a stance. I don't think we ever expect anyone to be neutral. In conclusion, humans can't really be neutral. They're biased. But that's OK. You shouldn't be basing your conclusion of information based on your authority-assessment about the individual, but basing on what they're saying. It's a distraction from what they're saying, and it's meaningless.

keepamovin 3y ago

Well I mean who do you expect to be advocating for this? It doesn't exactly ruin his credibility that he's part of it. I think it just enhances his credibility. Come to think about, this point is stupid: it's as if you can say, "This person who wrote this article, has previously written articles having the same views. We need to consider that they are not neutral." Would the assumption of "neutrality" (unrealistic, because is anyone really ever?) change what they're saying? The point I guess is not to ad-hominem and appeal to authority, but to assess the things they say on what they say. This point you're saying makes no sense to me: why should we discard what someone says because they have a stance? Everybody has a stance. I don't think we ever expect anyone to be neutral. In conclusion, humans can't really be neutral. They're biased. But that's OK. You shouldn't be basing your conclusion of information based on your authority-assessment about the individual, but basing on what they're saying. It's a distraction from what they're saying, and it's meaningless.