this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2024
299 points (96.0% liked)

[Outdated, please look at pinned post] Casual Conversation

6586 readers
1 users here now

Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.


RULES

Related discussion-focused communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

To me it feels like a matured Reddit. (At least most of the time πŸ™ƒ)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'll use some silly examples.

Ad hominem - taking a claim as automatically false because of who said it:

  • [Alice] "The Sun is a star, like any other."
  • [Bob] "People, disregard what Alice said. Alice is no astronomer, so of course the Sun is not a star."

Ad autoritatem - taking a claim as automatically true because of who said it:

  • "See that scientist there? He has a PhD, and he claims that anthropogenic climate change is not a big deal. Thus we can safely disregard it as people making shit up."

Sometimes authorities are wrong. The likelihood of being wrong might be smaller than the one of a random nobody, but it's still there. You can't simply deal with it as "authority said so then it's true". (Check what I said about inductive logic in the other comment.)

There's more, but they all boil down to "you aren't analysing the claim, you're analysing where the claim is from".

[–] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 3 points 10 months ago

Thanks for clarifying! :)