• Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
    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@lemmy.ca
      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@lemmy.ca
        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@lemmy.ca
          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@lemmy.ca
            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@lemmy.ca
              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@lemmy.ca
                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”?

                  • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
                    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?