Reply To: Questions regarding DPF.

[Breakable]

Phil’s Dad wrote:
This is probably true (try this for example http://liberalpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Conservapedia) which makes argumentum ad hominem all the more pointless.
As Wiki says (so it must be true) “The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.”
Perhaps we can avoid it on this site, have faith in their motives and concentrate on discussing their work(s) instead.

Pointing out potential bias or character flaws that are related to issue should not be “Ad hominem”.
If somebody is caught lying about their credentials, could you believe their research is valid?

It would probably be nice to avoid all the logical fallacies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
as well as cognitive biases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
in any intelligent discussion.

Some people have a really strong opinion
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/
and nothing can persuade them.

Other people are pretending to care about something, while really just jerking around:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

There are huge amounts of lies, misinformation and propaganda on the internet about every controversial issue and people don’t learn in school how to evaluate the information critically or how to keep an open mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

So the result is most of population is contaminated with nonsense, which reaps its toll:
http://coolrain44.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/this-sign-has-sharp-edges1.jpg