[derriz]

How? He carefully examines and actually reads all the papers referenced in the video and shows that they either don’t support Benn’s claims or completely contradict them? Drawing conclusions about Benn Jordan on this basis is not ad hominem. Given the contents of these papers (i read a few of the abstracts), Jordan either didn’t read the papers, didn’t be understand them or else is being disingenuous.

[thomastjeffery]

You are arguing that he came to the "wrong" conclusions without actually arguing against those conclusions, or how he got to them. Instead, you are arguing that a reasonable person can come to your conclusions, and therefore Benn is not a reasonable person.

At no point in his video does Benn claim to be representing the consensus. The whole premise of his videos is that he is introducing something for which there is very little consensus! Each paper has its own conclusions, which don't have to be the same as Benn's. This whole thing boils down to an attack on Benn's character ability to draw meaningful conclusions on his own.

[derriz]

> You are arguing that he came to the "wrong" conclusions without actually arguing against those conclusions

I am not.

Benn claims that the papers say one thing when in fact, if you read them (even the abstracts), they mostly say the exact opposite. It's that simple.