4 ms·

Pointing out that a person lacks credentials is not an ad hominem attack. It is extremely pertinent. Think about it... "Dr. Bob says x about my corpus callosu

• anamax 17y ago
  While pointing out someone's credentials is not an ad hominem attack, it isn't a refutation of their position either. In fact, it's rather lame. (It is perfectly appropriate to point out "he's arguing from authority and has none", but the second part is, strictly speaking, unnecessary.) Either he's got a good argument or he doesn't, and that's true even if he's Hitler. (I like to skip to the end.)
• mynameishere 17y ago
  Well, here's a book http://books.google.com/books?id=-HTQY_b1_84C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s http://books.google.com/books?id=-HTQY_b1_84C&printsec=f... Search for ad verecundiam for a discussion on the matter. Really, what he's doing is an opposite of argument from authority, and I think the author suggests that is 1) Sometimes appropriate, and 2) Sometimes ad hominem. In my eyes, the PhD-holding article-writer is sufficiently credentialed to write mild articles on mild subjects. To say he's wrong because he didn't go to a sufficiently good school is a rather obvious personal attack. For what it's worth, I initially typed in "your comment is 95 percent name-calling" to parrot him, but then changed it. I mean, it was just so laughable that he went on and on about the guy's fricking school. and then made the insane charge that the author was mostly name-calling. Geez.