Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 55 (9054 total)
103 online now:
DrJones*, nwr, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 100 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,178 Year: 5,824/14,102 Month: 410/335 Week: 16/83 Day: 16/17 Hour: 1/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Skeptical Inquirer has research on ad hominem attacks in July/Aug issue.
Posts: 17032
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7

Message 3 of 8 (887042)
07-05-2021 3:35 AM

1) Skeptical Inquirer has an online presence and lists the articles in the issue (some are available to general readers). None have titles suggesting that they are “research on ad hominem attacks”.

2) In an Argument from Authority the person IS the argument. Pointing out that they are not reliable sources - as is the case with Andrew Wakefield - is an entirely valid response.

3) Even in the case of Wakefield’s paper the undeclared conflicts of interest - for instance - are relevant information.

4) I see no reason to believe that there is a problem on this forum that would justify the additional workload of the proposed “solution”.
Providing evidence that there is a significant problem here would be far more relevant to that than anything in the article.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-05-2021 5:20 PM PaulK has responded

Posts: 17032
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7

Message 8 of 8 (887059)
07-06-2021 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by LamarkNewAge
07-05-2021 5:20 PM

Re: Comments
So are you going to do anything about your own use of ad hominem?

Are you going to mark that?

eg Message 176

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-05-2021 5:20 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021