this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
150 points (96.9% liked)

Canada

9553 readers
1417 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

  2. Election Interference / Misinformation

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


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rodeo 1 points 2 years 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.

[–] Greg 1 points 2 years 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"?

[–] Rodeo 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] Greg 1 points 2 years 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?

[–] Rodeo 1 points 2 years 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.

[–] Greg 1 points 2 years 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?