3 ms·

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

recuter 12y ago
No, that would be calling out the author by name as a shill. Remarking that the source the author is relying upon could possibly be biased/tainted is not an ad hominem in any way.
- kenbellows 12y ago
  It could be considered an ad hominem attack on a study if OP had said "the source was funded by coffee sellers and therefore it's all false and incorrect". But that's not what's happening here anyway.
  - josefresco 12y ago
    The OP is "implying" that based on who funded the research, this may be truthful. So while the claim was not made outright, it was insinuated.
  - afarrell 12y ago
    If the strength of an argument depends partly on trusting the integrity of a source, why is doubting that integrity a fallacy? In an ideal world you judge experimental results by their reproducibility, but who on HN has the time to reproduce results?
    - kenbellows 12y ago
      If all you are doing is casting reasonable doubt, that's fine. The logical fallacy arises when you point to the source of a proposition and declare that mouth that spoke it makes it false by nature. There's a big difference between "This pro-coffee study was funded by Big Coffee, so I'm skeptical and would like further studies and independent verification" and "This pro-coffee study was funded by Big Coffee, therefore the conclusion is false and coffee actually isn't good for you." Even if Big Coffee funded this report and benefited from its conclusions, the conclusions may very well still be valid; it would be a fallacy to reject this possibility outright.
kenbellows 12y ago
Careful, OP isn't claiming that a lack of funding data makes the article false or inaccurate. The point is simply that (in OP's opinion) some of the most critical information needed to determine whether or not this article's conclusions should be taken seriously is missing. This is not an instance of an ad hominem fallacy.
- josefresco 12y ago
  I agree it wasn't a perfect fit - I'm not fluent enough in debate terminology to know, maybe this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
  - kenbellows 12y ago
    I don't think there was a fallacy involved at all here. If in fact critical data is missing, then OP is right to point that out. This doesn't inherently negate the conclusions of the article (and claiming that it does would in fact be a fallacy), but I don't think OP was claiming that anyway.

No, that would be calling out the author by name as a shill. Remarking that the source the author is relying upon could possibly be biased/tainted is not an ad hominem in any way.

kenbellows 12y ago
It could be considered an ad hominem attack on a study if OP had said "the source was funded by coffee sellers and therefore it's all false and incorrect". But that's not what's happening here anyway.
- josefresco 12y ago
  The OP is "implying" that based on who funded the research, this may be truthful. So while the claim was not made outright, it was insinuated.
- afarrell 12y ago
  If the strength of an argument depends partly on trusting the integrity of a source, why is doubting that integrity a fallacy? In an ideal world you judge experimental results by their reproducibility, but who on HN has the time to reproduce results?
  - kenbellows 12y ago
    If all you are doing is casting reasonable doubt, that's fine. The logical fallacy arises when you point to the source of a proposition and declare that mouth that spoke it makes it false by nature. There's a big difference between "This pro-coffee study was funded by Big Coffee, so I'm skeptical and would like further studies and independent verification" and "This pro-coffee study was funded by Big Coffee, therefore the conclusion is false and coffee actually isn't good for you." Even if Big Coffee funded this report and benefited from its conclusions, the conclusions may very well still be valid; it would be a fallacy to reject this possibility outright.

kenbellows 12y ago

Careful, OP isn't claiming that a lack of funding data makes the article false or inaccurate. The point is simply that (in OP's opinion) some of the most critical information needed to determine whether or not this article's conclusions should be taken seriously is missing. This is not an instance of an ad hominem fallacy.

josefresco 12y ago
I agree it wasn't a perfect fit - I'm not fluent enough in debate terminology to know, maybe this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
- kenbellows 12y ago
  I don't think there was a fallacy involved at all here. If in fact critical data is missing, then OP is right to point that out. This doesn't inherently negate the conclusions of the article (and claiming that it does would in fact be a fallacy), but I don't think OP was claiming that anyway.