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

    I never said she doesn’t know anything about science because she’s a lawyer. I’m saying that she’s not a scientist and she works for an anti pesticide organization. Both of those facts are important and not mentioned in the article. I never attacked her character.

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

      Again, what is expertise if not part of one’s character?

      You’re really having a hard time with this one eh?

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

        I think this is where we disagree, I don’t believe that clarifying someone’s expertise is an attack on their character. I don’t accept medical advice from people who have no expertise in medicine. It’s not a judgment on their character, is a matter of relevant expertise.

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

          You seem to be a little too focused on the word “attack”.

          She made specific points and your response to those points was to fault to her expertise. You didn’t respond to her points; you responded to her character.

          Relevant or not, it is still ad hominem.

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

            She noted issues with the accuracy and relevance of the data used by the government in its assessment process.

            She made this specific point. Her expertise is relevant to her statement as no evidence is offered. I’m making no judgement on her character by pointing out her expertise.

            If a cop pulls you over for speeding and asks for your drivers license, it’s not an ad hominem attack. Context is important and there is nuance to labeling arguments as ad hominem.

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

              So you’re not disputing her point at all then? If you’ve nothing to dispute, then how is expertise even relevant?

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

                If Mary Lou McDonald was a toxicology expert her statement about the accuracy of the data would have more relevance. If Mary Lou McDonald had outlined the actual issues with the accuracy of the data her statement would have more relevance.

                She is not offering details about issues with the data, so her expertise is important context.

                The argument that expertise is part of character, therefore any mention of expertise is a fallacious ad hominem argument ignores the importance of expertise in giving context to a statement. A statement about health obviously has more relevance coming from a doctor than an influencer (assuming they’re not also a doctor).

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

                  And yet the veracity of such a statement is completely independent of anyone’s expertise.

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

                    Can you expand on that idea? I’m not sure I understand.

                    Also, as a side note, I appreciate this debate and having my arguments challenged. Lemmy is great for more constructive conversations.