3 ms·

His affiliation means his facts and actual investigation of the full story are suspect. His motivation is clear in that it was designed to be an anti-'ObamaCar

His affiliation means his facts and actual investigation of the full story are suspect. His motivation is clear in that it was designed to be an anti-'ObamaCare' piece, which fits right in with the Wall Street Journal/Fox News/Murdoch's mission. Just as the facts and full story would be suspect in a pro-ObamaCare piece on MSNBC or Daily Kos.

baddox 13y ago
> His affiliation means his facts and actual investigation of the full story are suspect. That is one of the most blatant statements of a textbook fallacy I've seen in a while. The affiliations and motivations of the arguer do not affect the trueness of facts or the validity of arguments.
- alanh 13y ago
  I knew I’d see this comment before I opened the HN discussion. Yes, it is fallacious to reject arguments to do the source. No, it is not unreasonable to use known facts about a speaker to weight the trust placed into their statements!
JohnTHaller 13y ago
> That is one of the most blatant statements of a textbook fallacy I've seen in a while. The affiliations and motivations of the arguer do not affect the trueness of facts or the validity of arguments. (baddox) The affiliations and motivations of the arguer DO affect things when the "facts" he is using can't be independently verified or objectively measured. This especially applies when the arguer is speaking from personal experience, which is intimately colored by his prejudices. The arguer isn't looking to provide a balanced perspective on an issue, they're looking to prove their point through any means necessary. Including the invention of "facts", stretching of the truth, omission of facts which contradict their worldview, etc.
- baddox 13y ago
  > The affiliations and motivations of the arguer DO affect things when the "facts" he is using can't be independently verified or objectively measured. Not so. If facts can't be independently verified or objectively measured, then that's case whether they're spoken by a well-known expert in the field or a well-known liar.

baddox 13y ago

> His affiliation means his facts and actual investigation of the full story are suspect. That is one of the most blatant statements of a textbook fallacy I've seen in a while. The affiliations and motivations of the arguer do not affect the trueness of facts or the validity of arguments.

alanh 13y ago
I knew I’d see this comment before I opened the HN discussion. Yes, it is fallacious to reject arguments to do the source. No, it is not unreasonable to use known facts about a speaker to weight the trust placed into their statements!

JohnTHaller 13y ago

> That is one of the most blatant statements of a textbook fallacy I've seen in a while. The affiliations and motivations of the arguer do not affect the trueness of facts or the validity of arguments. (baddox) The affiliations and motivations of the arguer DO affect things when the "facts" he is using can't be independently verified or objectively measured. This especially applies when the arguer is speaking from personal experience, which is intimately colored by his prejudices. The arguer isn't looking to provide a balanced perspective on an issue, they're looking to prove their point through any means necessary. Including the invention of "facts", stretching of the truth, omission of facts which contradict their worldview, etc.

baddox 13y ago
> The affiliations and motivations of the arguer DO affect things when the "facts" he is using can't be independently verified or objectively measured. Not so. If facts can't be independently verified or objectively measured, then that's case whether they're spoken by a well-known expert in the field or a well-known liar.