this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
130 points (95.8% liked)

Canada

7148 readers
205 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Regions


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social & Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's the foundation of ad hominem. It doesn't matter whether a two year who knows nothing or an expert with a life of experience says "climate change is happening", because the expertise of the person making the statement has no bearing on the truth of the statement itself. The two year old who can barely think is still right, even though he's not an expert, and if you want to debate it then you have to debate whether climate change is happening, not whether the two year old knows anything.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Would you concede that in cases where no evidence is provided, a climate expert saying "climate change will affect x" has more validity than a non climate expert saying "climate change will not affect x"?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No. A statement has the same validity regardless of who says it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not talking about the validity of an argument as no argument is made in either statement. So maybe validity was a poor choice of wording. Which statement would you trust more?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well if we're talking about trust, then we are talking about belief, and if you're moving into the realm of belief then there is no point in any further discussion of reason.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

You initially claimed that mentioning expertise was an ad hominem fallacy. That's what we've been discussing. Can you now appreciate that mentioning expertise in this case is not an ad hominem fallacy?