The article discusses the complexities of responding to accusations, such as those found in comments about racism. The author points out that such attacks can be rapidly made, akin to throwing matches in a dry forest, escaping unscathed unless addressed. Not responding allows the attacker to claim victory, even if their argument lacks substance. The article also highlights common fallacies like arguments against expertise, where one's credentials are dismissed without proper reasoning, illustrating the flawed logic behind rejecting informed opinions based purely on the speaker's authority.
The problem with addressing attacks like these is that you use more time than the attacker, leading to a perceived victory for them.
Rejecting a claim solely because it comes from an authority is a clear example of bad reasoning and a misunderstanding of expertise.
The phrase 'argument against expertise' reveals a common tactic where personal attacks undermine legitimate claims made by knowledgeable individuals.
By stating ‘I should not be believed simply for my credentials,’ I emphasize the importance of evaluating arguments on their own merit, not the speaker's authority.
Collection
[
|
...
]