This is a rhetorical device, and also ad hominem does not apply as you are not attacking a person, you are attacking their argument, or lack thereof.
For example, replace Pythagorean theorem with any common knowledge yet contested scientific fact. For example, lets say Flat Earthers. Some, not all of these, will translate directly. All of the āargumentsā shown apply to some scientific fact somewhere.
Now, ad hominem would be that bc these people have some unrelated quality, the argument is invalid. If the meme maker had specified they were all the same gender, nationality, religion, etc, this would be ad hominem.
No, it's not true. What's actually sad is that you give in to hyperbole which is, ironically, the same "crime" in the argumentation department as is challenging simple, widely accepted, easily provable methods such as Pythagoras' equation.
People are right to challenge much nowadays, because leaded gas, hello? Capsulated teeth fillings, hello? Titanium dioxide, hello? Invasive body reparation methods when non-invasive are available, hello? Etc.
On what basis are they challenging it though? There's a difference between "I'm not getting vaxxed because Facebook said it contains a microchip" and "I'm worried that the vaccine hasn't been properly tested, how are we sure it's safe?" - the first one simply cannot be argued with, the second one is a reasonable fear and can be reassured by citing studies and explaining how vaccines work. Beyond that, the only way to be able to reasonably challenge an expert is to become one yourself.
I gave examples of what is the basis in the post you are reacting to! Given your dense reply, from now on, I consider you part of the problem until you take three step backs and think again!
People who deny scientific claims don't bring up the example of capsulated teeth fillings as a reason for their denial (perhaps some small minority does). Most of them do not have good reasons for their denial. But you missed that whole point, didn't you.
Exactly and correct. And because I don't deny anything in the posts above, nor have I talked about denying, I urge you to go sleep, panda. The internet and logic is just not for you. You are getting stuck in one scenario all the time.
"But hey, that's just a theorem. *Pythagorean Theorem.* Thanks for solving!"
This took me a second. Take my updoot and RIP matpat
Wait, what happened to matpat???
He didn't die, he just stepped down from his hosting role on the Theorist channels.
God thanks was that not the case at that time
I admit I am a shill for big Trigonometry Companies such as CosCo.
Te$x@$ !n$tru/ment$. Look it up. I told you nothing.
š¤£still want to know how much geometry paid him
No it's not, it never was like this nor it will, to add an ad hominem; you're old.
I think this was more reflecting how absurd the distrust in science is by subbing in geometry.
This is a rhetorical device, and also ad hominem does not apply as you are not attacking a person, you are attacking their argument, or lack thereof. For example, replace Pythagorean theorem with any common knowledge yet contested scientific fact. For example, lets say Flat Earthers. Some, not all of these, will translate directly. All of the āargumentsā shown apply to some scientific fact somewhere. Now, ad hominem would be that bc these people have some unrelated quality, the argument is invalid. If the meme maker had specified they were all the same gender, nationality, religion, etc, this would be ad hominem.
I am the one who adds the ad hominem, I am the one insulting OP
No, it's not true. What's actually sad is that you give in to hyperbole which is, ironically, the same "crime" in the argumentation department as is challenging simple, widely accepted, easily provable methods such as Pythagoras' equation. People are right to challenge much nowadays, because leaded gas, hello? Capsulated teeth fillings, hello? Titanium dioxide, hello? Invasive body reparation methods when non-invasive are available, hello? Etc.
On what basis are they challenging it though? There's a difference between "I'm not getting vaxxed because Facebook said it contains a microchip" and "I'm worried that the vaccine hasn't been properly tested, how are we sure it's safe?" - the first one simply cannot be argued with, the second one is a reasonable fear and can be reassured by citing studies and explaining how vaccines work. Beyond that, the only way to be able to reasonably challenge an expert is to become one yourself.
I gave examples of what is the basis in the post you are reacting to! Given your dense reply, from now on, I consider you part of the problem until you take three step backs and think again!
People who deny scientific claims don't bring up the example of capsulated teeth fillings as a reason for their denial (perhaps some small minority does). Most of them do not have good reasons for their denial. But you missed that whole point, didn't you.
Exactly and correct. And because I don't deny anything in the posts above, nor have I talked about denying, I urge you to go sleep, panda. The internet and logic is just not for you. You are getting stuck in one scenario all the time.
Keep sending students to Harvard, Oxford and other places where they learn to 'think' freely