4 ms·

"First of all, the author sells a book about vitamins being bad, so he's probably not being objective about it." That's a cynical glass-half empty perspective.

by latch 13y ago

"First of all, the author sells a book about vitamins being bad, so he's probably not being objective about it." That's a cynical glass-half empty perspective. The other way to look at it is that he might be an expert... For example, assuming this is the same Paul Offit...you could claim that his book on the importance of vaccination makes him non objective, which would be a silly claim given that he's widely considered a leading expert in the field of vaccination. Edit: I'm going to get a little more personal because, for some reason, your opening line really bothered me. You're dismissing someone's opinion, in a field for which he holds an M.D., where he spent 25 years of his life building a vaccine against a disease which kills 600 000 children a year . You've been barely alive for that period of time and you've studied computer science....the guy's an expert. Doesn't make him right...but there's no reason to disrespect him by assigning him false motives.

relix 13y ago
I'm just adding to the body of facts here. There's an almost identical article by him in the Guardian linked below which contains a plug to his book. It feels a lot like a marketing campaign for his book which will be released next week. Edit: what do any personal facts matter here? Could you please stay on-topic and not make this about me vs him, but more about the content of his article? On top of the logical fallacies[1][2] you're committing, I feel really creeped out that you're posting personal details about me. [1]: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem [2]: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
- latch 13y ago
  That he's "probably not being objective" isn't a fact. You opened up with the ad-hominem, do you really not see that?
  - relix 13y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem "Conflict of Interest: Where a source seeks to convince by a claim of authority or by personal observation, identification of conflicts of interest are not ad hominem – it is generally well accepted that an "authority" needs to be objective and impartial, and that an audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source. Identification of a conflict of interest is appropriate, and concealment of a conflict of interest is a problem."
    - oblique63 13y ago
      There was just an article on the front page not too long ago about the misuse of logical fallacies, so thanks for correcting that for everybody. As a rule of thumb, an 'Ad hominem' is only fallacious when the 'attack' is irrelevant to the argument; probable motivation to exhibit bias is not irrelevant to the argument.
    - brown9-2 13y ago
      To be fair though, the author does not hide any conflict of interest - it is stated in the footer - and the argument is made with evidence, not simply "I've been a doctor for 25 years, listen to me!". This is coming dangerously close to dismissing all arguments from experts because their expertise has made them "biased" or presents a "conflict".
tantalor 13y ago
"The other way to look at it is that he might be an expert..." He is definitely an expert. From Wikipedia, he is a pediatrician, co-inventor of a rotavirus vaccine, and published more than 130 papers in medical and scientific journals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Offit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Offit
- giardini 13y ago
  "He is definitely an expert." Medicine is a very big field. Indeed, so big that being a pediatrician, co-inventor of a rotavirus vaccine and publishing 100-odd papers doesn't make someone an expert on the very specific topic of human use of antioxidants. That is, unless the 100-odd papers are related to the human use of antioxidants.

by latch 13y ago

relix 13y ago

I'm just adding to the body of facts here. There's an almost identical article by him in the Guardian linked below which contains a plug to his book. It feels a lot like a marketing campaign for his book which will be released next week. Edit: what do any personal facts matter here? Could you please stay on-topic and not make this about me vs him, but more about the content of his article? On top of the logical fallacies[1][2] you're committing, I feel really creeped out that you're posting personal details about me. [1]: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem [2]: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

latch 13y ago
That he's "probably not being objective" isn't a fact. You opened up with the ad-hominem, do you really not see that?
- relix 13y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem "Conflict of Interest: Where a source seeks to convince by a claim of authority or by personal observation, identification of conflicts of interest are not ad hominem – it is generally well accepted that an "authority" needs to be objective and impartial, and that an audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source. Identification of a conflict of interest is appropriate, and concealment of a conflict of interest is a problem."
  - oblique63 13y ago
    There was just an article on the front page not too long ago about the misuse of logical fallacies, so thanks for correcting that for everybody. As a rule of thumb, an 'Ad hominem' is only fallacious when the 'attack' is irrelevant to the argument; probable motivation to exhibit bias is not irrelevant to the argument.
  - brown9-2 13y ago
    To be fair though, the author does not hide any conflict of interest - it is stated in the footer - and the argument is made with evidence, not simply "I've been a doctor for 25 years, listen to me!". This is coming dangerously close to dismissing all arguments from experts because their expertise has made them "biased" or presents a "conflict".

tantalor 13y ago

"The other way to look at it is that he might be an expert..." He is definitely an expert. From Wikipedia, he is a pediatrician, co-inventor of a rotavirus vaccine, and published more than 130 papers in medical and scientific journals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Offit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Offit

giardini 13y ago
"He is definitely an expert." Medicine is a very big field. Indeed, so big that being a pediatrician, co-inventor of a rotavirus vaccine and publishing 100-odd papers doesn't make someone an expert on the very specific topic of human use of antioxidants. That is, unless the 100-odd papers are related to the human use of antioxidants.