Since when is it "ad hominem", to be suspicious, of an author's propensity to cherry-pick/ misrepresent sources (e.g. in his/ her implied claim, that s/he was faithfully representing the totality what those sources actually say)?
“The IDSA cites sources.”
So did Dr. Goebbels.
But, when his students "cite sources", you're damn right I'm g…
Since when is it "ad hominem", to be suspicious, of an author's propensity to cherry-pick/ misrepresent sources (e.g. in his/ her implied claim, that s/he was faithfully representing the totality what those sources actually say)?
“The IDSA cites sources.”
So did Dr. Goebbels.
But, when his students "cite sources", you're damn right I'm going to voice suspicion of these citations (esp. if I lack the expertise, to assess the context from which the quotes were drawn, or the time to meticulously scrutinize every single quote).
Until we have Goebbels under oath (he at risk of prosecution for perjury), I'll demand the right to deploy what you call "ad hominem".
And, I'm sure that (if you stay consistent with you’re here-espoused conception of "ad hominem") his students would have a gas, cramming your conception of "ad hominem" down your throat (to protect his students’ shrewd agitProp from legit scrutiny).
All forms of *testimony* (incl. about “researched facts”, by High-Social-Status “academicians”) are *always* fair game for sharp scrutiny.
Only if I were to dispute the *logic* of a *particular* line of argument, would the charge of ad hominem apply here.
(E.g., “If Adolf claimed that 2=2=4, then 2=2=4 is now so much more suspect” *is* an ad hominem.)
"Ad hominem" is one of the most abused of Latinisms, esp. by today's slew of pseudo-educated.
All of us *always* have the right, to be suspicious, of anyone styling themselves to speak with authority (esp. when we know that they have so much institutional power at their backs).
I quite hope that, if readers get nothing else out of this thread, it will get them to think deeply on what “ad hominem” is, vs. what it is at times purported to be.
(It is not for *you * to *interrogate* what I do, until you manage to get [Big Pharma-owned?] Fed’l agencies to point guns at my head.)
"under the boots of the CCP, Collins etc"; you compare me and the IDSA to Nazis, elsewhere you accuse interlocutors of being shills.
As it happens, I'm an MD. I've been following issues around bias, conflicts of interest and poor, inaccurate research for the past 10-15 years. I'm not an academic but I've more expertise and experience than you or Weinstein. I defer to trusted experts like the IDSA. Of the FDA approved treatments one is very cheap; all show effectiveness only in limited circumstances. None are wonder drugs.
By your argument, any deference to an expert or expert panel is an argument from authority.
The central question is why aren't you suspicious of Bret? He styles himself as speaking with authority which he does not have.
Not to my shock, you post here a slew of straw men/ specious claims.
“you compare me *and the IDSA* to Nazis
No I don’t.
I compare you to Goebbels and Alinsky, because your demagoguery on “ad hominem” warrants that.
Yeah, I do suspect *ISDA* of kowtowing to the CCP, at the behest of its allied crowds (esp. WHO) which clearly do kowtow to the CCP.
“you accuse interlocutors of being shills”.
Yeah, that can be said, but I do so only after this M. Johnson, with your evident backing, *accused* Weinstein (& Bari Weiss?) of
“generating paranoia with conspiracy theories”.
It’s standard fare, for Establishment shills to bellow about their foes being “conspiracy theorists”, until the evidence (e.g. on the Lab leak, and on Deep State deceit/ criminality) gets too strong, for these theorists to continue to be *effectively* smeared in that way.
(For reliable knowledge on such matters, start with Greenwald, whose 15+ year track record of prescient calls dwarfs that of any of the neoCons Mr. Johnson hangs with.
“any deference to an expert or expert panel is an argument from authority.”
Of course it is, what else could it be?
At issue is, or should be, the (esp. recent) track-record of the Authority.
“why aren't you suspicious of Bret?”
You don’t know that I’m not.
(You know only that) I’ve said nothing *here* about it, because I reacted here to the gushing (by all, save for Mr. Bartlett)
over this Mr. Johnson’s dissing of Weinstein.
Almost certainly, Johnson is no more “qualified” than I, and quite less than Weinstein, to speak with authority on these matters.
“authority which he does not have.”
I don’t see, how you think that you *know* this.
As for the Quillette article, the bulk of readers’ comments, many clearly quite knowledgeable, quite rip the article as, at best, a rather cheap set of shots at Weinstein.
From the start of this covid mess, Fauci and his MSM etc. allies have been implying/ insisting, that those who question them are “anti-science”.
As long as they continue on that road, I’ll tend to be *at least* as suspicious of them, as of Weinstein etc.
“but I've more expertise and experience than you”….
You know *nothing of that* sort.
For all you know, I may’ve had the good fortune, of having c. 50 years of expertise and experience (often rather intense) dealing (incl. personally/ intellectually) with folks from various walks of life, incl. lawyers, cops, reporters, handymen, small businessmen, IT Dept. wheels, professors, political hacks/ activists, shrinks, and MDs (and their families), here and there across the US, and across the globe (esp. w/ Brits, Germans, Israelis, Argentinians, Russians, Chinese, Afghans, & Persians).
(As it happens, I have had that good fortune. It’s been, at times, wild!)
“I defer to *trusted* experts like the IDSA.”
I don’t, esp. in light of my intimate knowledge, of how so many “experts” cut corners, cover their asses (often much at others’ expense), and play the (often brutally superficial) media, to gin-up a rep for “expertise”.
Alas, as one of my quite knowledgeable mentors put it, the real heroes of American society are the Salesmen (i.e., the BSers).
More later, on others of your specific assertions.
More on, that the real heroes of American society are the Salesmen:
Among veteran lawyers, cops etc., an aphorism goes
"believe nothing of what you hear, and *only* 1/2 of what you see."
To modify this a bit, I say
"believe c. 1/4 of what you hear, and only 3/4 of what you see."
As for those of you, who've never been exposed to, or taken seriously, this line of thinking, I say: please spare me any pontificating, about how well-educated you are.
Also, I’ve been *quite* close, to folks who were close to very major players, in the Admins of Nixon, Ford, Carter, & Dubya, e.g. Budget Director or SecDef., at least one of whom was outright world-famous.
And, I had a sort of substantive interaction with the Big Dog, in his ’92 campaign.
And, c. 20 years before, I had substantial personal/ intellectual interaction with a (influential?) Brig. General, for a good year or so.
And, I’ve dealt face-to face, one-on-one, not just in passing, with at least a few famous/ notorious figures in journalism, historiography, etc.
But don’t worry, I never was (to my knowledge) eligible for a Clearance. I personally was (always?) too far “on the outskirts”.
Since when is it "ad hominem", to be suspicious, of an author's propensity to cherry-pick/ misrepresent sources (e.g. in his/ her implied claim, that s/he was faithfully representing the totality what those sources actually say)?
“The IDSA cites sources.”
So did Dr. Goebbels.
But, when his students "cite sources", you're damn right I'm going to voice suspicion of these citations (esp. if I lack the expertise, to assess the context from which the quotes were drawn, or the time to meticulously scrutinize every single quote).
Until we have Goebbels under oath (he at risk of prosecution for perjury), I'll demand the right to deploy what you call "ad hominem".
And, I'm sure that (if you stay consistent with you’re here-espoused conception of "ad hominem") his students would have a gas, cramming your conception of "ad hominem" down your throat (to protect his students’ shrewd agitProp from legit scrutiny).
All forms of *testimony* (incl. about “researched facts”, by High-Social-Status “academicians”) are *always* fair game for sharp scrutiny.
Only if I were to dispute the *logic* of a *particular* line of argument, would the charge of ad hominem apply here.
(E.g., “If Adolf claimed that 2=2=4, then 2=2=4 is now so much more suspect” *is* an ad hominem.)
"Ad hominem" is one of the most abused of Latinisms, esp. by today's slew of pseudo-educated.
All of us *always* have the right, to be suspicious, of anyone styling themselves to speak with authority (esp. when we know that they have so much institutional power at their backs).
I quite hope that, if readers get nothing else out of this thread, it will get them to think deeply on what “ad hominem” is, vs. what it is at times purported to be.
(It is not for *you * to *interrogate* what I do, until you manage to get [Big Pharma-owned?] Fed’l agencies to point guns at my head.)
"under the boots of the CCP, Collins etc"; you compare me and the IDSA to Nazis, elsewhere you accuse interlocutors of being shills.
As it happens, I'm an MD. I've been following issues around bias, conflicts of interest and poor, inaccurate research for the past 10-15 years. I'm not an academic but I've more expertise and experience than you or Weinstein. I defer to trusted experts like the IDSA. Of the FDA approved treatments one is very cheap; all show effectiveness only in limited circumstances. None are wonder drugs.
By your argument, any deference to an expert or expert panel is an argument from authority.
The central question is why aren't you suspicious of Bret? He styles himself as speaking with authority which he does not have.
https://quillette.com/2021/07/06/looking-for-covid-19-miracle-drugs-we-already-have-them-theyre-called-vaccines/
Not to my shock, you post here a slew of straw men/ specious claims.
“you compare me *and the IDSA* to Nazis
No I don’t.
I compare you to Goebbels and Alinsky, because your demagoguery on “ad hominem” warrants that.
Yeah, I do suspect *ISDA* of kowtowing to the CCP, at the behest of its allied crowds (esp. WHO) which clearly do kowtow to the CCP.
“you accuse interlocutors of being shills”.
Yeah, that can be said, but I do so only after this M. Johnson, with your evident backing, *accused* Weinstein (& Bari Weiss?) of
“generating paranoia with conspiracy theories”.
It’s standard fare, for Establishment shills to bellow about their foes being “conspiracy theorists”, until the evidence (e.g. on the Lab leak, and on Deep State deceit/ criminality) gets too strong, for these theorists to continue to be *effectively* smeared in that way.
(For reliable knowledge on such matters, start with Greenwald, whose 15+ year track record of prescient calls dwarfs that of any of the neoCons Mr. Johnson hangs with.
See e.g. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-fbis-strange-anthrax-investigation .)
“any deference to an expert or expert panel is an argument from authority.”
Of course it is, what else could it be?
At issue is, or should be, the (esp. recent) track-record of the Authority.
“why aren't you suspicious of Bret?”
You don’t know that I’m not.
(You know only that) I’ve said nothing *here* about it, because I reacted here to the gushing (by all, save for Mr. Bartlett)
over this Mr. Johnson’s dissing of Weinstein.
Almost certainly, Johnson is no more “qualified” than I, and quite less than Weinstein, to speak with authority on these matters.
“authority which he does not have.”
I don’t see, how you think that you *know* this.
As for the Quillette article, the bulk of readers’ comments, many clearly quite knowledgeable, quite rip the article as, at best, a rather cheap set of shots at Weinstein.
From the start of this covid mess, Fauci and his MSM etc. allies have been implying/ insisting, that those who question them are “anti-science”.
As long as they continue on that road, I’ll tend to be *at least* as suspicious of them, as of Weinstein etc.
“but I've more expertise and experience than you”….
You know *nothing of that* sort.
For all you know, I may’ve had the good fortune, of having c. 50 years of expertise and experience (often rather intense) dealing (incl. personally/ intellectually) with folks from various walks of life, incl. lawyers, cops, reporters, handymen, small businessmen, IT Dept. wheels, professors, political hacks/ activists, shrinks, and MDs (and their families), here and there across the US, and across the globe (esp. w/ Brits, Germans, Israelis, Argentinians, Russians, Chinese, Afghans, & Persians).
(As it happens, I have had that good fortune. It’s been, at times, wild!)
“I defer to *trusted* experts like the IDSA.”
I don’t, esp. in light of my intimate knowledge, of how so many “experts” cut corners, cover their asses (often much at others’ expense), and play the (often brutally superficial) media, to gin-up a rep for “expertise”.
Alas, as one of my quite knowledgeable mentors put it, the real heroes of American society are the Salesmen (i.e., the BSers).
More later, on others of your specific assertions.
More on, that the real heroes of American society are the Salesmen:
Among veteran lawyers, cops etc., an aphorism goes
"believe nothing of what you hear, and *only* 1/2 of what you see."
To modify this a bit, I say
"believe c. 1/4 of what you hear, and only 3/4 of what you see."
As for those of you, who've never been exposed to, or taken seriously, this line of thinking, I say: please spare me any pontificating, about how well-educated you are.
Also, I’ve been *quite* close, to folks who were close to very major players, in the Admins of Nixon, Ford, Carter, & Dubya, e.g. Budget Director or SecDef., at least one of whom was outright world-famous.
And, I had a sort of substantive interaction with the Big Dog, in his ’92 campaign.
And, c. 20 years before, I had substantial personal/ intellectual interaction with a (influential?) Brig. General, for a good year or so.
And, I’ve dealt face-to face, one-on-one, not just in passing, with at least a few famous/ notorious figures in journalism, historiography, etc.
But don’t worry, I never was (to my knowledge) eligible for a Clearance. I personally was (always?) too far “on the outskirts”.
And, to my first list, let’s add bankers and published scientists, and (less intensely) Italians & Czechs
Regarding the Contacts on the above lists, I met all of them due to my activities in the private sector.
None of them were the direct result of my rather trivial niche in the public sector, which may be analogous to Einstein’s gig in the patent office.
This Mr. Carter hurled at me an Argument from Authority, and when I questioned these Authorities’ cred, he hurled “ad hominem” at me.
Quite worthy of Dr. Goebbels.
Or, of Saul Alinsky.