Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler?

Re:Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler? by tptacek on Thursday July 20, 2017 @01:43PM (#14814687)

I'm not going to give an inch on this. This isn't an issue of logic versus persuasion. It is logically valid to attack the credibility of an argument that depends in any way, implicitly or overtly, on the credibility or authority of its bearer.

The "ad hominem fallacy" is misused on the Internet probably more than it is applied correctly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Scientists Reverse Brain Damage in Drowned Toddler? by WhitneyLand on Thursday July 20, 2017 @01:56PM (#14814826)

I don't think you have to give an inch. I'm agreeing it's legit to judge someone's argument based on credibility.

The reason is imperfect information. If I described here an actual, real, cure for all cancer, people shouldn't believe it because credibility is shit, it hasn't been clinically proven, and it might take 10 years to do so.

If I write in a solid proof for a millennium prize problem, you're probably going to be safe not worrying about my credibility at all because the truth will be known in pretty short order.

Usually the more uncertainty the more credibility has to be weighted.

[ Parent | on HN ]