[FRIAM] "SSRN-id3978095.pdf" was shared with you

[glen]

Words matter: how ecologists discuss managed and non-managed bees and birds
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-022-04620-2

I'm continuing this thread because I really want to classify types of ad hominem. The most obvious bifurcation is human vs. source ... so against the human versus against the source. E.g. I've been using https://ground.news. And this morning, they had some 100% right (as in political right, not correct) article where all the sources were Mixed or Low Factuality. I found myself trusting the Mixed Factuality Fox News more than any of the others. So ... familiarity? I guess?

Re loaded language and the birds and the bees: I don't think it's possible to remove the loading from loaded language. The best you can do is be aggressively transparent about your loading. And that's what triggers my "ad hominem". It's a reaction to closed or obfuscated loading. E.g. when some older white dude at the pub insists on using politically incorrect language that makes the kids cringe, you have to do a little analysis and modeling of the speaker. Are they doing it 'cause they're just too stupid? 'Cause it stirs up the kids? 'Cause it makes them feel "free"? Etc. It's less *against* the person and more of an attempt to infer their loading.

On 1/8/24 11:06, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> I am particularly grateful for the ad hominem stuff.

-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ