| > That saves time and effort for the reader, in much the same way that showing a single step in a math proof is wrong is an efficient way of rebutting an entire work. This isn't actually how mathematics functions as a profession: small technical faults are routinely pointed out without discrediting the bulk of the work and at times, major works are submitted without all the technical details actually being accounted for. Mathematicians are capable of understanding the main thrust of a work without getting bogged down in technicalities, and usually try to "ironman" the work -- seeing the main thrust in the best light possible, rather than the worst. (In contrast to "strawman".) > Secondly, in claiming I have a personal dislike of Hearn, you're actually making a clear ad-hominem attack. My personal feelings are irrelevant to whether or not Hearn's arguments are correct. It actually is relevant, considering that you "refuted" Hearn's arguments through the flimsiest of means -- pointing out a small flaw and saying he's not technically correct -- without every addressing the core part. The heuristic of personal bias is a fine way to assess the genuineness with which you presented a heuristic argument (since you didn't address the core points), and assess if we want to take your heuristic point at face value. It's anything but an ad hominem to provide a reason you might be trying to present a faulty heuristic in response to you presenting a heuristic argument. So... since you were wrong on both points here, we should discount the entirety of your posts on this topic -- at least, by your (poor) logic. (I don't actually have any opinion on the topic, but your reasoning here is bad.) |