• Rodeo
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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 Clarke
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        • Greg Clarke
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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 Clarke
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              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?