4 ms·

He's a retired radiologist who knows nothing about astrophysics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi_mQ0sKOfo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi_mQ0sKOfo

dotps1 2y ago
[flagged]
- sneak 2y ago
  causality0 was making statements about his credentials and expertise, not his personal characteristics. I think ad hominem definitionally has to be irrelevant. “x knows nothing about topic y” is not ad hominem even if it is a false statement.
  - contravariant 2y ago
    People really ought to learn that pointing out a fallacy doesn't suddenly make it false. I mean I could point out that that is known as the fallacy fallacy, but then I'd be doing the same thing myself. Really a fallacy represents a particular weak argument. The way to defeat them is not to name the correct fallacy but to point out the weakness. If that doesn't work then you likely have the wrong fallacy, or the argument isn't fallacious to begin with.
  - panopticon 2y ago
    An ad hominem doesn't have to be irrelevant; it just means that the argument is about the person rather than the position. Attempting to dismiss an argument due to the person's credentials instead of their position is 100% an ad hominem. But like contravariant said, that doesn't mean the argument is wrong—just that it's a weak argument.
- causality0 2y ago
  He was booted out of his university, he has never published an astrophysical paper in a peer-reviewed journal, he buys ad space in newspapers to publicize his "theories", his ideas either make no testable predictions or make incorrect predictions. He says the cosmic microwave background is caused by ocean waves. He thinks blackbody radiation stops working in outer space.
- bmacho 2y ago
  I think this is the most relevant, factual, and checkable info?
- HelloMcFly 2y ago
  I do not personally possess the knowledge with which to evaluate this person's claims or belief. Therefore, I have to index on other information to evaluate the plausibility of the claims. In this case, the other information is 1) proven credentials in the subject matter and 2) general acceptance of his theories by a community with more credentials. He lacks the former and the latter, so I'm disinclined to give his theories much attention. Plenty of so-called outsiders have made amazing discoveries before, or at least hypothesized what would eventually be an amazing discovery. Maybe that's the case here. Yet skepticism seems warranted without that being considered an ad hominem attack.
- patmorgan23 2y ago
  I think those facts about the authors credentials are pretty relevant, especially to this audience that's probably not filled with astrophysics literate individuals.
- lupire 2y ago
  Here you go: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille Astrophysics is not a matter of personal opinion. It requires a lot of detailed knowledge and careful practice. Legitimate authority is relevant.
  - isthatafact 2y ago
    From the wiki article: "he maintains that satellite measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation, believed by most astronomers to be an afterglow of the Big Bang, are actually observations of a glow from Earth's oceans." I am no expert but that wacky idea can be ruled out with concepts in an introductory physics textbook just based on the fact that the cosmic microwave background is a few Kelvin blackbody spectrum whereas the ocean temperature is 273K or higher (which would have a very different "warmer" spectrum).
JALTU 2y ago
Einstein.

dotps1 2y ago

[flagged]

sneak 2y ago
causality0 was making statements about his credentials and expertise, not his personal characteristics. I think ad hominem definitionally has to be irrelevant. “x knows nothing about topic y” is not ad hominem even if it is a false statement.
- contravariant 2y ago
  People really ought to learn that pointing out a fallacy doesn't suddenly make it false. I mean I could point out that that is known as the fallacy fallacy, but then I'd be doing the same thing myself. Really a fallacy represents a particular weak argument. The way to defeat them is not to name the correct fallacy but to point out the weakness. If that doesn't work then you likely have the wrong fallacy, or the argument isn't fallacious to begin with.
- panopticon 2y ago
  An ad hominem doesn't have to be irrelevant; it just means that the argument is about the person rather than the position. Attempting to dismiss an argument due to the person's credentials instead of their position is 100% an ad hominem. But like contravariant said, that doesn't mean the argument is wrong—just that it's a weak argument.
causality0 2y ago
He was booted out of his university, he has never published an astrophysical paper in a peer-reviewed journal, he buys ad space in newspapers to publicize his "theories", his ideas either make no testable predictions or make incorrect predictions. He says the cosmic microwave background is caused by ocean waves. He thinks blackbody radiation stops working in outer space.
bmacho 2y ago
I think this is the most relevant, factual, and checkable info?
HelloMcFly 2y ago
I do not personally possess the knowledge with which to evaluate this person's claims or belief. Therefore, I have to index on other information to evaluate the plausibility of the claims. In this case, the other information is 1) proven credentials in the subject matter and 2) general acceptance of his theories by a community with more credentials. He lacks the former and the latter, so I'm disinclined to give his theories much attention. Plenty of so-called outsiders have made amazing discoveries before, or at least hypothesized what would eventually be an amazing discovery. Maybe that's the case here. Yet skepticism seems warranted without that being considered an ad hominem attack.
patmorgan23 2y ago
I think those facts about the authors credentials are pretty relevant, especially to this audience that's probably not filled with astrophysics literate individuals.
lupire 2y ago
Here you go: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille Astrophysics is not a matter of personal opinion. It requires a lot of detailed knowledge and careful practice. Legitimate authority is relevant.
- isthatafact 2y ago
  From the wiki article: "he maintains that satellite measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation, believed by most astronomers to be an afterglow of the Big Bang, are actually observations of a glow from Earth's oceans." I am no expert but that wacky idea can be ruled out with concepts in an introductory physics textbook just based on the fact that the cosmic microwave background is a few Kelvin blackbody spectrum whereas the ocean temperature is 273K or higher (which would have a very different "warmer" spectrum).

JALTU 2y ago

Einstein.