“Safe Food Matters president Mary Lou McDonald agreed. Accessing the health and safety data the PMRA uses to determine MRLs is challenging due to stringent limits on what data can be seen — and shared — by the public to protect pesticide companies’ intellectual property. She noted issues with the accuracy and relevance of the data used by the government in its assessment process.
Moreover, she noted the PMRA and pesticide manufacturers have a close working relationship — an issue also flagged by Lanphear.”
Firstly, the burden of proof should be on the person making the claim and Mary Lou McDonald offers no evidence for her claim.
Secondly, I’m not making an ad hominem fallacy. I’m not attacking Mary Lou McDonald’s character. I’m pointing out that she is not an expert in this field.
That’s literally an ad hominem fallacy lmao. What is expertise if not part of ones character?
You are not an expert either, but that doesn’t mean anything you say about it is untrue and should be discarded. If you make a claim the validity of that claim is what should be debated, not whether your credentials are relevant.
I made two points above. Mary Lou McDonald offered no evidence AND she’s not a scientist. Mary Lou McDonald didn’t make an argument and provide evidence.
That’s literally an ad hominem fallacy lmao.
This is incorrect. Pointing out that someone is not an expert in a technical field they are discussing is not an ad hominem fallacy. That’s a ridiculous idea.
Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
If you recall, we are talking about what constitutes an ad hominem attack. Since being a lawyer does not preclude knowledge of science, pointing out that she is a lawyer constitutes an ad hominem attack.
Let me know if you need that spelled out for you yet again.
I never said she doesn’t know anything about science because she’s a lawyer. I’m saying that she’s not a scientist and she works for an anti pesticide organization. Both of those facts are important and not mentioned in the article. I never attacked her character.
I think this is where we disagree, I don’t believe that clarifying someone’s expertise is an attack on their character. I don’t accept medical advice from people who have no expertise in medicine. It’s not a judgment on their character, is a matter of relevant expertise.
You seem to be a little too focused on the word “attack”.
She made specific points and your response to those points was to fault to her expertise. You didn’t respond to her points; you responded to her character.
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.
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).
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.
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”?
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?
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.
You initially claimed that mentioning expertise was an ad hominem fallacy. That’s what we’ve been discussing. Can you now appreciate that mentioning expertise in this case is not an ad hominem fallacy?
You know what I hate about this? In the past, you could very easily vote with your wallet by spending it on organic food, instead of this poison laden crap.
But these days, food is so expensive that very few have that option, so we pay a premium to these companies who really don’t give a damn about us, the planet, or biodiversity.
Add comment