• 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?