• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    12 years 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
      12 years 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).

        • Greg Clarke
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 years 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            12 years 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
              12 years 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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  12 years 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?

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    12 years 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.