Neverending Audit

Why on earth would anyone be happy?

This was a figure of speech. It is alleged that the Erinyes were never quite happy, even when they should have been. Perhaps it was a part of their social function, if we’re to borrow a concept our fellow Shub is holding dear, or their bias, if we’re to borrow our beloved Bishop’s new ringtone.

Which was the point of my first comment hereunder, underhandedly censored. Procrustes would have been proud of the pea and thimble machine the contrarian blogland has developed. It is quite able to produce an indignated shriek or a sardonic laugh day, in day out, to a point where there is no valid reason to surmise that it will end after Mike’s demise, if that were to happen.

Contrary to mine, this kind of audit will never end.

[It seems that I can’t post this comment on CA, in response to our beloved gatekeeper’s bullying tactics. Perhaps this is all for the better: as Steve said, naming and shaming is a “waste of time”. Let’s not wonder why Steve does that since 2005.]

On the Jul 7, 2012 at 12:07 PM, our beloved gatekeeper mindreads:

“The “effect” you were looking for was to create a link to a known fallacious argumentative technique.

First, this use of “effect” is not the same as the one he mocks: this creates an equivocation.

Second, presuming that an ad hominem is fallacious might very well be false: an ad hominem could very well be valid if it’s relevant to the point under dispute, as our beloved gatekeeper himself admitted a bit later in his comment.

Third, all this is irrelevant to Roger’s use of “ad hominem attack”, which falls under the second definition of the Wikitionary entry he provided on july 7, at 3:23 AM, nine hours earlier than our beloved gatekeeper’s comment:

A personal attack.

Since our beloved gatekeeper concurs that “criticisms of poor scientific behavior are indeed personal”, then he must confess being in violent agreement with Roger, however oblivious our beloved gatekeeper might look.

Our beloved gatekeeper should consult the relevant Wikipedia entries before issuing slurs like “ridiculously silly” and “completely off-base”: his own comment agrees with Roger’s, except perhaps when he refuses that the expression “ad hominem attack” can refer to something else than an ad hominem argument, which incidentally is not always fallacious.

Gatekeepers should let that one go, as they should let go of bullying tactics that are useless in our context, contrary to the ivory towers where our beloved gatekeeper seem to have honed them. Speaking of which, our beloved gatekeeper’s expression “insular tightly-knit circle” reminds us of this related claim:

You do not have “decades” of observations by “thousands” of scientists that shed any light on this matter. In my opinion, the viewpoint that is prevalent is based on the influence of a very small group of scientists, who use pretty shaky data to make a point that is politically charged.

http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/26583622112