• 1 Post
  • 665 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 18th, 2023

help-circle

  • global science trends over the past decade. China’s research output in the journals tracked by the Nature Index continues to grow strongly, demonstrated by Beijing extending its lead at the summit of the science cities ranking to almost double the Share of the second-placed city. The fact that this second place is now taken by Shanghai, pushing New York into third

    So they claim to track actual output themselves, but it’s still a very big question whether that is accurate?
    I have heard that Chinese research is riddled with fake research papers estimated at about half of it being copied from works of others.
    The same is allegedly true for getting into higher education in China, the competition is so steep that people cheat to get in.




  • I don’t get the relevance of that link, it talks about logical falacies like:

    A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be a mammal.”

    I don’t see how that’s relevant, there is no way that can be seen as an ad hominem. The entire piece seems to be like that. And obviously ad hominem is not a logical fallacy as in flawed use of actual logic like boolean logic. And obviously explaining how and argument is wrong, is not an ad hominem. That’s normal discourse to progress on the issue.

    But this part:

    Therefore, if you can’t demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can’t demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem.

    I believe I have CLEARLY shown that the comment “you are hurt and angry” is exactly that. If it’s not an argument based on his (wrong) interpretation of my person, then what is it?

    From wikipedia which is way more concise, and actually talks about what an ad hominem is instead of what it is not:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

    Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are fallacious. Often currently this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument.

    In this case me being emotional.
    If he writes, you are wrong because you have a big nose. That’s an obvious ad hominem. You are wrong because you are being emotional is an equally obvious ad hominem. They are the exact same fallacy as writing you are wrong because you are an idiot.



  • Ok buddy, you only quoted part of what I said.

    I took the part that was essential. Your claim about the below is essentially the same argument.

    Your argument is wrong because you’re an idiot

    That’s the same as your argument is wrong, because you are angry and hurt, (and therefore not rational). Both are attacks on the person and not the argument. Although one is more polite than the other.

    And oh he also claimed i was living in a bubble, so he actually made 3 comments that were ill camouflaged personal attacks, first on my emotional state, 2nd on my rationality, and finally claiming I’m uninformed from living in a bubble.

    Yet I’m the one downvoted for calling his ad hominem out.
    The fact that X is used outside USA is obvious, thinking he needs to “explain” that is ridiculous, and I live in EU, so I think I’m aware of that. And Xitter definitely also has a fascist agenda outside USA, but maybe he isn’t aware of that?

    None of the 3 attacks (non arguments) were ever qualified any further, probably because he can’t.

    But I understand why you are hurt and angry, but you must understand you are wrong, because “obvious fact”, and you live in a Bubble.

    So do you think that’s an OK comment to our discussion? Because that’s EXACTLY what the comment by NoiseColor to me boils down to. It’s an even bigger ad hominem when put together.











  • No on the contrary, mRNA is really brilliant, in my very limited understanding, instead of injecting you with a weakened disease, you get the learning process against it instead. This is actually a lot safer than other types of vaccine, and many times safer than getting the virus without having the vaccine.

    I live in Denmark, and Denmark chose to use mRNA exclusively because they are both the safest and provide the best protection, Denmark is also one of the countries that have had fewest problems with COVID in the world, because we have very high rate of mRNA vaccinated people.

    So you don’t have to experiment yourself, it’s already been done on a massive scale, and the result is clear.