Gar Lipow wrote:
>
> Re this: http://slavesofacademe.blogspot.com/2006/03/we-dont-need-another-hero.html
>
> I think, by the way, that this is a case where ad hominem in the
> original sense is legitimate. Human time is limited. Certain mistakes
> entitle one to cease to pay attention to those making them, to
> concentrate on other sources more likely to provide a better signal to
> noise ratio.
When it is a question of factual accuracy, and the only grounds for the factual assertion is the word of one writer, then it is not ad hominem but necessary good sense to question the writer's, character, record for honesty, technical qualification, etc. When it is a question of _argument_ (analysis, interpretation) and the facts are not at issue, then focusing on the writer's character, motive, etc. is ad hominem and a gross violation both of logic and of decency in argument. When the facts are agreed on, the interpretation offered by a Joseph Goebels stands or falls on its own, independently of the man's bias.
But your argument here is also valid -- why should one devote time to the ravings of conspiracits, Heritage Foundation scholars, DP presidential candidates, and so forth.
Carrol
Carrol