Many logical fallacies are actually good quick-and-dirty heuristics for deciding whether something is worth considering. "The source is biased, therefore the argument is wrong" is clearly incorrect, but "the source is biased, therefore the argument has a high likelihood of being wrong, therefore reading it is not a good use of my time" is not just correct, but also a very useful rule.
"The source is biased, therefore the argument is wrong" is clearly incorrect, but "the source is biased, therefore the argument has a high likelihood of being wrong, therefore reading it is not a good use of my time" is not just correct...
No, your reformulation is also incorrect. A correct formulation might be "The source is biased; therefore I would be wise to be skeptical and subject any claims to greater scrutiny."
The overarching problem is that everyone with expertise has a bias. It's crazy to claim that those skeptical of AGW may be biased, but those backing the notion -- like the British scientists who found themselves in hot water last year -- are somehow above it all.
Everyone in this game is biased. Why would they have become involved if they didn't have some passion for the subject? Thus, we're left with needing to subject the ideas of all to great scrutiny, on both sides.
No, your reformulation is also incorrect. A correct formulation might be "The source is biased; therefore I would be wise to be skeptical and subject any claims to greater scrutiny."
A nice thought, but naive and impractical in application. Engaging in a proper skeptical analysis for a technical subject requires a thorough knowledge of the subject being discussed and a great deal of time and dedication. In short, it means acquiring personal expertise.
Most people don't have time to become an expert in everything; relying on other people's opinions is the only practical policy, and heuristics for deciding whose opinions are most likely to be trustworthy are valuable--even though said heuristics tend to sound an awful lot like logical fallacies.
It's crazy to claim that those skeptical of AGW may be biased, but those backing the notion -- like the British scientists who found themselves in hot water last year -- are somehow above it all.
Did I claim that?
Everyone in this game is biased. Why would they have become involved if they didn't have some passion for the subject? Thus, we're left with needing to subject the ideas of all to great scrutiny, on both sides.
Well, I wasn't talking about the one topic specifically. But, generally speaking, everyone in the entire world is biased, crazy, and wrong about most things. So it goes.
Complaining about how every participant in a debate is biased is technically correct but useless, and tends to obfuscate clues about who might actually be worth listening to.
