4 ms·

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

by 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".

by relix 13y ago

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".