Ad hominem arguments about «deniers» need not apply.
Not exact matches
I know that you called my
argument stupid but you never gave a compelling reason why (which isn't
ad hominem, by the way since you were targeting a
argument and not a person, do read more
about informal fallacies to avoid seeming uneducated).
Judith Curry wrote: «He voices concerns
about the following threats to scientific integrity (see especially the last page): appealing to emotions; making personal (
ad hominem) attacks; deliberately mischaracterizing an inconvenient
argument; inappropriate generalization; misuse of facts and uncertainties; false appeal to authority; hidden value judgments; selectively leaving out inconvenient measurement results.»
How
about evaluating what's true on the basis of the evidence instead of endlessly blathering
about who benefits, and other worthless
ad hominem arguments?
I have written many times
about how Lewandowsky uses
Argument from Authority
ad nauseum along with
ad hominems, and lightly seasoned with
Argument from Ignorance.
Putting James Hansen aside, the whole logic that «climate scientists got it wrong in the 70's so they must be wrong now» is a flawed
ad hominem argument that says nothing
about the current science of anthropogenic global warming.
Again, there are plenty of ignorant people on all sides but by going
about this low rhetorical (and yes,
ad hominem) tactic has only weakened your
argument.
If Chris Monckton, common bloke, reading the scientific literature, finds fault with the methodologies of researchers, and has laid out his objections in excruciating detail, could we give those objections a look, and ascertain whether his
arguments have any merit, without resort to
ad hominem diversions
about his alleged delusions of grandeur?
So, having prior to this railed
about JQ's arrogance, he then proceeds to lecture
about ad hominem attacks, and the short lecture is an
ad hominem argument suggesting that any
arguments of a person who might have engaged in an
ad hominem attack do not require further evaluation!