• 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.

        • 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?