There are many who reject arguments because of who is making them. I do it myself ..... if I feel that the argument lacks cogency and I can detect motives and associated "reasons" unreferenced by whoever's making that argument. This is rejection partly based on reputation - a reputation that demonstrates that the person so-arguing is generally not cogent and is using unsupported premises to support a conclusion they want to be true despite it being a poor one without well-reasoned or logical merit.axel_knutt wrote: 26 Jun 2024, 2:28pmSeeking to refute an argument by impugning the motives of the advocate is a fallacy because proof that someone has a motive doesn't constitute proof that their argument is wrong.Jdsk wrote: 25 Jun 2024, 1:10pmA preference for systematic reviews over those vulnerable to cherrypicking doesn't depend on any fallacies.
And looking at who funded studies is a very important part of critical reading. See that recently posted comment about the editor of the BMJ and big pharma. Reputable studies always publish the funding.
Jonathan
If you were to tell me that people will die if they don't get enough to eat, for example, and I responded by saying "you're just saying that because you want some of my dinner", I haven't made a rational argument, because proof you want my dinner isn't proof, or even an attempt at proving, that people can survive without food. If I wanted to challenge your assertion that people need food, the rational way to go about it would be attempting to make a reasoned counterargument, or produce counterevidence.
Similarly, the way to refute irc's reference is by producing evidence that smoking harms the economy, not by drawing attention to the political motives of the IEA.
However, a lot of us, these days, are prone to dismissing arguments from characters or organisations we don't like even if those arguments are reasonable or logically sound. As soon as PR-like stuff pops up, we become suspicious (and often rightly so). On the other hand, good arguments have their own power to persuade us, long after the personality that made them is forgotten.
I often change my mind in this way - despite arguing and rejecting a conclusion in part because of who made it, some time later (often weeks or months) I find that I've accepted the argument and changed my mind. It makes sense even if I thought the character making it some time ago was generally without much sense at all.
We humans are awk'ard little buggers, eh?
