151
Feds consider upping allowable pesticide residue limits on our food
(www.nationalobserver.com)
What's going on Canada?
๐ Meta
๐บ๏ธ Provinces / Territories
๐๏ธ Cities / Local Communities
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
๐ Sports
Hockey
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
๐ป Schools / Universities
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
๐ต Finance, Shopping, Sales
๐ฃ๏ธ Politics
๐ Social / Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
Would you concede that in cases where no evidence is provided, a climate expert saying "climate change will affect x" has more validity than a non climate expert saying "climate change will not affect x"?
No. A statement has the same validity regardless of who says it.
I'm not talking about the validity of an argument as no argument is made in either statement. So maybe validity was a poor choice of wording. Which statement would you trust more?
Well if we're talking about trust, then we are talking about belief, and if you're moving into the realm of belief then there is no point in any further discussion of reason.
You initially claimed that mentioning expertise was an ad hominem fallacy. That's what we've been discussing. Can you now appreciate that mentioning expertise in this case is not an ad hominem fallacy?