Ad-hominem not cool? What if it's Paul Cameron?

[Dekusta]

As many of you might know, Paul Cameron's (and the Family Reaearch Institute's) anti-gay arguments have been debunked over and over by many blogs out there, such as the Box Turtle Bulletin. His methodology is so flawed and so terrible that most people who ever quoted him apologized afterwards.

My point of concern is about the possibility of dismissing a study by the FRI based on the past obvious, terrible mistakes they made.
There is one study (that I know) who hasn't been discussed yet (as far as I know). Can it be dismissed simply because it's Paul Cameron? Is the ad-hominem in this case justified?


(The study in question is"Homosexual Rape and Murder of Children", published in Journal of the Family Research Institute, Vol. 18 No. 1, Feb 2003.
The researches claim that 69% of the serial killers in this study were homosexuals (i.e., people who were self-described homosexuals or people who had engaged in homosexual behavior immediately prior to, during, or after committing their murders)".

 

[Keith&Co.]

Is it really ad hominem? Or 'attention deficit disorder?

 

[PyramidHead]

As many of you might know, Paul Cameron's (and the Family Reaearch Institute's) anti-gay arguments have been debunked over and over by many blogs out there, such as the Box Turtle Bulletin. His methodology is so flawed and so terrible that most people who ever quoted him apologized afterwards.

My point of concern is about the possibility of dismissing a study by the FRI based on the past obvious, terrible mistakes they made.
There is one study (that I know) who hasn't been discussed yet (as far as I know). Can it be dismissed simply because it's Paul Cameron? Is the ad-hominem in this case justified?


(The study in question is"Homosexual Rape and Murder of Children", published in Journal of the Family Research Institute, Vol. 18 No. 1, Feb 2003.
The researches claim that 69% of the serial killers in this study were homosexuals (i.e., people who were self-described homosexuals or people who had engaged in homosexual behavior immediately prior to, during, or after committing their murders)".

Ad hominem is different from being skeptical about a source based on empirical evidence. Ad hominem is an insult to a person's character, not their track record of delivering reliable information. It's saying, "PyramidHead is a bastard who cuts people off at intersections, therefore his statement about income tax rates is probably false." Which is very different from "PyramidHead is paid by corporate lobbyists to bend the truth, therefore his statement about income tax rates is probably false." If the study is trustworthy, it would have been published in an actual scientific journal with rigorous peer-review, not a fake journal run by a hate group.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Science Has Been a Series of Erroneous Authoritarian Paradigms

As many of you might know, Paul Cameron's (and the Family Reaearch Institute's) anti-gay arguments have been debunked over and over by many blogs out there, such as the Box Turtle Bulletin. His methodology is so flawed and so terrible that most people who ever quoted him apologized afterwards.

My point of concern is about the possibility of dismissing a study by the FRI based on the past obvious, terrible mistakes they made.
There is one study (that I know) who hasn't been discussed yet (as far as I know). Can it be dismissed simply because it's Paul Cameron? Is the ad-hominem in this case justified?


(The study in question is"Homosexual Rape and Murder of Children", published in Journal of the Family Research Institute, Vol. 18 No. 1, Feb 2003.
The researches claim that 69% of the serial killers in this study were homosexuals (i.e., people who were self-described homosexuals or people who had engaged in homosexual behavior immediately prior to, during, or after committing their murders)".

Ad hominem is different from being skeptical about a source based on empirical evidence. Ad hominem is an insult to a person's character, not their track record of delivering reliable information. It's saying, "PyramidHead is a bastard who cuts people off at intersections, therefore his statement about income tax rates is probably false." Which is very different from "PyramidHead is paid by corporate lobbyists to bend the truth, therefore his statement about income tax rates is probably false." If the study is trustworthy, it would have been published in an actual scientific journal with rigorous peer-review, not a fake journal run by a hate group.

There should be something called Ad Angelum, too. Your "peer-review" could be a narrow-minded clique driven by slavishness to the latest lucrative fad instead of disembodied non-partisan seekers of truth. And "scientific" could be minor-league scientists who know all the rhetorical tricks needed to appear scientific. B students jealous of A students.

 

[Dekusta]

There should be something called Ad Angelum, too. Your "peer-review" could be a narrow-minded clique driven by slavishness to the latest lucrative fad instead of disembodied non-partisan seekers of truth. And "scientific" could be minor-league scientists who know all the rhetorical tricks needed to appear scientific. B students jealous of A students.

I've seen this before. Is peer-review that important? I don't know if the FRI even tried to publish on a scientific journal. All I know is that most of their studies are misleading.

 

[skepticalbip]

Also completely exposing the writer of a paper as a fraud who continually writes papers making unfounded claims and conclusions does not mean the the conclusion of the paper being considered is wrong. Even a blind pig finds an acorn occasionally.

Example: a claim that someone was cursed by a witch so has malaria doesn't mean that they don't actually have malaria.

 

[Bronzeage]

As many of you might know, Paul Cameron's (and the Family Reaearch Institute's) anti-gay arguments have been debunked over and over by many blogs out there, such as the Box Turtle Bulletin. His methodology is so flawed and so terrible that most people who ever quoted him apologized afterwards.

My point of concern is about the possibility of dismissing a study by the FRI based on the past obvious, terrible mistakes they made.
There is one study (that I know) who hasn't been discussed yet (as far as I know). Can it be dismissed simply because it's Paul Cameron? Is the ad-hominem in this case justified?


(The study in question is"Homosexual Rape and Murder of Children", published in Journal of the Family Research Institute, Vol. 18 No. 1, Feb 2003.
The researches claim that 69% of the serial killers in this study were homosexuals (i.e., people who were self-described homosexuals or people who had engaged in homosexual behavior immediately prior to, during, or after committing their murders)".

It is not ad hominem to question someone's veracity or their authority, as long as evidence of duplicity or ignorance can be presented.

 

[Dekusta]

Also completely exposing the writer of a paper as a fraud who continually writes papers making unfounded claims and conclusions does not mean the the conclusion of the paper being considered is wrong. Even a blind pig finds an acorn occasionally.

Example: a claim that someone was cursed by a witch so has malaria doesn't mean that they don't actually have malaria.

Yes, but the prior probability of the paper being wrong is quite high.

Although I didn't find a copy of the study itself, this page discusses it a bit, I'll leave the link in case someone's interested.
http://www.adherents.com/misc/hsk.html

 

[skepticalbip]

Also completely exposing the writer of a paper as a fraud who continually writes papers making unfounded claims and conclusions does not mean the the conclusion of the paper being considered is wrong. Even a blind pig finds an acorn occasionally.

Example: a claim that someone was cursed by a witch so has malaria doesn't mean that they don't actually have malaria.

Yes, but the prior probability of the paper being wrong is quite high.

Although I didn't find a copy of the study itself, this page discusses it a bit, I'll leave the link in case someone's interested.
http://www.adherents.com/misc/hsk.html

I completely agree, there is no reason to believe the paper reaches a valid conclusion. But then it would take a real study to make a definitive conclusion that it was false. Is such a study warranted? I wouldn't think so but then I don't really know anything about the subject.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Just Like the Constitution: Makes Itself Almost Impossible to Amend and Its Supremacy Is Self-Declared

As many of you might know, Paul Cameron's (and the Family Reaearch Institute's) anti-gay arguments have been debunked over and over by many blogs out there, such as the Box Turtle Bulletin. His methodology is so flawed and so terrible that most people who ever quoted him apologized afterwards.

My point of concern is about the possibility of dismissing a study by the FRI based on the past obvious, terrible mistakes they made.
There is one study (that I know) who hasn't been discussed yet (as far as I know). Can it be dismissed simply because it's Paul Cameron? Is the ad-hominem in this case justified?


(The study in question is"Homosexual Rape and Murder of Children", published in Journal of the Family Research Institute, Vol. 18 No. 1, Feb 2003.
The researches claim that 69% of the serial killers in this study were homosexuals (i.e., people who were self-described homosexuals or people who had engaged in homosexual behavior immediately prior to, during, or after committing their murders)".

It is not ad hominem to question someone's veracity or their authority, as long as evidence of duplicity or ignorance can be presented.

The term Ad Hominem protects itself. Whoever made it up wanted to protect his clique from having its ulterior motives looked into.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Science Has Been a Series of Erroneous Authoritarian Paradigms

...he posted on the internet.

 

[exodiasrightleg]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The extraordinary claim in this case being "this time Paul Cameron is not being a dishonest fuckwit, we swear".