Originally Posted by NGIB
Methinks real credibility resides with the first group...
Credibility has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a statement is true. He is saying that, because of his experiences in which people he shot immediately stopped their hostilities, that all people who are shot immediately cease their hostilities
. I have shown over and over that this is simply not an accurate generalization, and is in fact a dangerous one to postulate.
The President says a lot of things. Are you guys to believe him just
because he's the president? I mean, given his status he has way more "credibility" than anyone from the interweb. If he says guns cause crime, are you going to believe him just because of some credibility? NO, you listen to his arguments and logically determine they are invalid or unsound. Just the same, in the academic world, arguments are not dismissed or accepted simply based on credibility. If an inmate or a highschool senior submits a paper that redefines the effects of Dark Energy on the universe, it will be considered just the same as if Bill Nigh (the Science Guy) wrote it himself.
It is a logical fallacy to try to relate the arguer to the validity of his argument.
Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Though, I guess some of you have no appreciation for what it means to be smart
, so perhaps my reference to Academia will be lost.