>Ad hominem attacks are not part of the scientific method
Sure, but then again neither are arguments from authority. The thing is that we're not practicing the scientific method here on HN in general. Yes, from time to time on specific tech topics there have been cases we're posters have actually gone out right then and there and tried to replicate something or test an idea. But mostly we're a talk shop, not in a bad way but fact is most real world tests and experiments aren't conducive time-wise to the amount of time a typical discussion topic stays active. Actually practicing science for real is very expensive in both time and money and requires specific niche skills few possess. It's the work of a broad network of people over months, years an decades.
So we're left depending to a significant agree on evaluating authorities and what they're saying. Which is fun, but let's not confuse where we stand here. And while argument ad hominem is a fallacy against any stronger form of argument, it can be a perfectly logically reasonable argument against argument from authority. If someone says they are a licensed doctor practicing in a specific area of medicine, and that therefore the recommendation they're making about medicine in that area of expertise is worth paying more attention to, then it's very relevant whether they are telling the truth about their credentials or not, whether they seem to be reasonably sane, etc. We're left with proxy measures, but that can't be helped. We all have to economize and stand on each other's shoulders when it comes to advanced knowledge and technologies.
That's true, it just also misses the point, like most invocations of ad hominem I come across.
People have lives outside of pursuing the scientific method. To decide to engage in that pursuit means taking away time and energy from other parts of life.
The argument here then is not that the paper is wrong because of who wrote it, but instead they insinuate that it probably is, and so it likely isn't even worth the time to try and evaluate whether it is.
This is a subtle but crucial difference, as this makes the core argument a speculation rather than a straight claim, let alone a scientific claim or refutation. And so for this, the identity of the author is a crucial bit, ad hominem cannot apply.
And this is if we make the ridiculous assumption that this was any more than just someone's informal opinion, like some sort of formal argument rather.
This doesn't suggest much of consequence, other than a vaguely-implied smear?
I've watched Hossenfelder's videos for years and whilst yes - she might perhaps be overly critical of a lot of things - I don't at all accept that she has weird, conspirational leanings.
I guess you're pointing to:
"Hossenfelder's more recent content has received criticism for her attacks on academic research[13][14] and for conspiracy theory-style portrayals of the physics community."?
She's been leaning very hard into clickbait and the shitty science journalist tactic of titles that obfuscate the lack of credibility of a claim, which is certainly unbecoming of a "real" scientist (mostly why I don't follow her content the way I do, say, PBS Space Time), I don't know if I'd say that's a conspiracy theory style portrayal though.