[Siddarth1977]

This isn't "context" this is literally the definition of an ad hominem attack. "Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument"

If universities have a massive, bloated and overly expensive legion of administrators, does it matter if the person pointing that out is doing so because they want to reduce the burden on students who are forced to take out massive loans or to reduce the burden on the taxpayers who ultimately pay those loans when the government "forgives" them?

[mikebenfield]

I don't have infinite time available. I can't read every article posted on HackerNews and carefully consider all its points. Knowing this author's affiliation is a big clue to me that this might not be a key source I want to rely on for this topic. Obviously this doesn't actually refute the author's points, but I don't care. This is enough information for me to decide to spend my time elsewhere.

[haberman]

I understand the need to have heuristics like this, but the hazard is that it allows bad behavior to go unchecked. If people with "good" affiliations circle the wagons, ignoring or downplaying the issue, how will bad behavior ever get corrected?

[mcrad]

Tribalism is part of the cause for the dysfunction described in the article. Highly recommended.

[igorkraw]

Yes. Because they aren't attacking bloated bureaucracies that have been sufficiently captured and privatised, and the offered solutions might be subtly biased. It's only an ad hominem if after using the heuristic and critically checking any hidden bullshit the personal bias of the interlocuteur you stick to your hostility even if you don't find anything. Otherwise it's just context that helps you think

[topaz0]

Conflicts of interest are definitely important context for me. You can jam that into the definition of ad hominem, I guess, but this isn't really a debate, so I don't see how it's relevant. Maybe if they'd said "this article is wrong because they're funded by so and so". But they didn't.

[pasquinelli]

logical fallacies are interesting. in logic, it doesn't matter what the objects are, just give them letters for names. a logically valid argument always holds no matter what you substitute the variables for; logically invalid arguments don't always hold no matter what you substitute the variables for; a logical fallacy is when you think an invalid argument is a valid one.

there's a tendency to fall into a fallacy of thinking an argument must be wrong because it's invalid. in real life, everyone does actually care what the objects being discussed are, and restricting yourself to logical validity would constrain your thinking to the point of uselessness. by dismissing a logically invalid argument out of hand because it's logically invalid, you're falling into your own fallacy, because to assume what's being claimed is false just because what's being claimed doesn't hold for everything itself doesn't hold for everything. for instance, if i tell you not to believe someone's claim because they cheat on their spouse, you can't assume they are lying about that claim, but you also can't assume they aren't lying about it.

so if someone tells you a person is motivated by greed to make an argument, yes, it isn't necessarily true that their argument has to be wrong--here's a cookie--but that also doesn't mean they aren't decieving you. what do you know about the subject other than what this potentially interested party just told you?

anyway, pay attention to when you fall for the fallacy fallacy, it's a window into your own ideology.

[topaz0]

Agreed, and worth pointing out that the op did not even claim that the argument was wrong -- just that there might be reason to look for bias in it.

[kilolima]

Identifying logical fallacies is a 1-pass spam removal system. Identifying and blanket dismissing arguments based on logical fallacies reduces the low-effort noise and allows the worthwhile arguments to be heard.

[rektide]

Ad hominem is a problem when you are arguing with people who argue in good faith & who can demonstrate unbiased willingness to engage in open discussion, who can hold & respect a broad set of interests when they argue.

But when the person you are arguing with has a permanent bent that will distort & warp every argument, it's just a defense of open society to call the person out on that bias, on their forever grinding that axe.

This mention was an excellent & valuable warning to me. That it happens to resemble an attack to some people, is, in my view, far secondary to the broad public good this post served.

[pessimizer]

> Ad hominem is a problem when you are arguing with people who argue in good faith & who can demonstrate unbiased willingness to engage in open discussion, who can hold & respect a broad set of interests when they argue.

No, this is changing your standards of logic to support intolerance. You don't get to decide people's motivations against their will, or accuse them of bad faith without an example of the display of that bad faith.

[rektide]

In this case I think there is some pretty significant examples linked showing exactly what kind of faith this group has. I think it's up to the reader to decide for themselves whether this group deserves positive, neutral or negative bias against them.

I have significant reservations about my statements on when ad-hominem is ok or not. I think there's more than the logic of debate that is important: that I re-affirm. But how & when & where the things beyond the logic happen is still a big question for me. In this case, I think this is pretty core & vital context that everyone is going to have to parse & interpret for themselves.

Running into an article like this online & not knowing the context isn't good. The meat of the top post here, to me, set some basics about who this group is & linked some wikipedia articles. This is obvious public benefit. The top post & I both have additional editorial things to say, that these people are actively detrimental to society for their own good & we should be careful reading this. That's a bit of an attack, but neither of us have said to reject the article or disbelieve it; we have not put to the audience logical conclusions; there is context (who the carrier is), and (designated opinioned) caution/hazard about the meta-message being delivered.

[jeegsy]

On this particular topic, I don't think it really matters who the source is, especially since the problems brought up in the article are generally accepted to be true at least from the comments I have read. Even a broken clock is right twice a day as the saying goes.

[philosopher1234]

I don’t think their affiliation means they’re completely wrong. Just that their ideas should be expected to bias in a particular direction.

[1123581321]

How is a comment inciting fear and anger, in order to protect rent seeking that harms education, a public good?

[haswell]

> in order to protect rent seeking that harms education

Without making any value judgements about the comment in question, it’s worth noting that it is possible to be both against rent seeking and take issue with the source.

These are not mutually exclusive, and the accusation is unnecessary.

[1123581321]

That is essentially what I believe is the only reasonable answer, which is that some people want to be informed but they do not want to inform others (i.e. share the link) if they think the source will embarrass them. The public value would come from their work to unearth and share an alternate source.

There are also people who do not want to be informed if the source is “bad,” but they’ll never admit it so shouldn’t be asked, and I don’t think OP or most people here are that entrenched.

[jtolmar]

A source speaking contrary to its own biases is very likely to be notable, and a source speaking along with its biases is essentially information-free. This implies that understanding a source's biases is crucial context to evaluating what they have to say.

[vegetablepotpie]

As a former student and Pell grant recipient, I never felt like conservatives had my back. I remember a Republican state legislator saying, while I was in school, that all students should be required to spend some minimum amount of money per year, regardless of aid, because “we needed skin in the game,” as if many of us we’re not perilously close to dropping out due to expenses.

This is important because many of these conservative groups focus on making education cheaper for students, and their families, who are already wealthy. This should be acknowledged when looking at their solutions because they don’t count many Americans as their stakeholders.

[rdtwo]

I guess I’ll take that why shouldn’t you have skin in the game even if it’s a small 2 k loan per year with deferred payments?

[vegetablepotpie]

What’s the point of that?

What we’re talking about is discouraging people from growing their skills and contributing to society.

I can’t say why that makes sense to other people. I suppose one assumption where asking individuals to pay some minimum amount would make sense is that education is perceived as a privilege that specifically benefits individuals, so individuals should not receive such benefits for free.

However, corporations require bachelors degrees for professional positions. Therefore having employees with bachelors degrees must also benefit them in some ways as well. However they would not be the ones taking out loans, risking dropping out and still needing to pay those loans, nor risking defaulting on those loans. However they will receive a pool of self trained employees for them to pick from to fill their ranks at their convenience.

We’d be shifting risk from institutions onto individuals. I don’t see a positive impact emerging from that.

[lmm]

> What we’re talking about is discouraging people from growing their skills and contributing to society.

We're talking about discouraging people from taking three or four years off on society's dime that won't contribute anything to society. A degree like that certainly seem plausible, and the individual is probably in a position to spot cases that higher-level oversight might miss.

> However, corporations require bachelors degrees for professional positions. Therefore having employees with bachelors degrees must also benefit them in some ways as well. However they would not be the ones taking out loans, risking dropping out and still needing to pay those loans, nor risking defaulting on those loans. However they will receive a pool of self trained employees for them to pick from to fill their ranks at their convenience.

Sure, and those corporations share in the tax burden that supports people in getting degrees.