A question about info source-purity

[Orrex]

We're all aware that an argument should be assessed on its own merits independent of the person making the argument. This is true for both weak and strong arguments, of course, and for correct and incorrect points. Likewise, empirical data should be evaluated objectively. I'm cool with all of that.

But what really twists me is when a paid spokesperson for this or that industry is speaking on-air about this or that bit of research proving this or that claim. Like The Heritage Foundation, for instance: it's hard to hear anything from them without feeling that the message serves a corporate or GOP interest. Ditto for Limbaugh or Hannity or whomever.

Additionally, if you happen to point out that Limbaugh is paid to be a biased mouthpiece, his proponents will invariably claim that you are making an ad hominem attack and refusing to address the argument.

How do you deal with this? I confess that I'm vexed, because it takes so much effort to debunk every little point, especially when it's obvious at the outset that he's full of shit.

My wife House of Kewpie suggested that my error is in assuming that all parties sincerely intend to be objective and factual, even if they're incorrect. Limbaugh et al have no intentions of objectivity but demand that they be afforded the same respect as an objective speaker. This is also true for corporate spokespersons in general; it must be assumed that their purpose is to benefit the bottom line, and a debate isn't really an objective argument; it's an opportunity to catapult the propaganda.

Does this make sense? Of course, I see the irony, since those of us on the Big Shill payroll are routinely accused of exactly that, but I'm referring to people actually charged with spreading company slogans.

What do you think? Is it necessary to treat every argument as sincere and objective, even when it's obviously not? How do you address an argument that's clearly just a thinly veiled marketing ploy?

[TZ]

1. I kind of figure as long as you know the agenda,..

You can evaluate the statement on its own merits..For instance.My own companies flu vaccination campaign. I do understand that the profit motive of selling more influenza shots is a big motive here. However, I do believe that influenza vaccines are important, and they do have sound scientific data on which to base their campaign.
The stuff that has no merit, that clearly is a marketing ploy only, well..its pretty easy to see that clearly. It won't have objective data to stand on...In other words, if you can find no collaborating evidence..say from an financially independent source, like a rival company or a non-profit (government/academic) source then you can back your argument.
If you are thinking about Gardasil..there is plenty of evidence from unbiased sources (like the Aussie academic who invented the vaccine). Also plenty of scientific journals that hold up both the efficacy and safety of the vaccine.
Interesting to note, that the data the anti-Gardasil spammers use are usually OPINION pieces while there are OODLES of actual scientific articles that uphold the scientific strengths of this vaccine.

[Orrex]

3. Not really thinking about Gardasil--more like clearly biased corporate polluters, etc.

The tactic of the Agenda-driven Expert is famously used by a lot of big companies, like Philip Morris, Exxon, and the like.

I guess where I have difficulty is in achieving the rhetorical balance between "you and I both know that's bullshit" and "I believe that the expert you've cited may be less than objective." In many cases the false objectivity is clear, but without going through it point by point, it's difficult to make that charge stick.

It's kind of like when, in an argument, someone says "you're getting defensive." The intent of that statement is to misdirect the discussion from "Is X the case?" to "Is Orrex Defensive?" When a faux expert is cited, the argument can easily turn from "Global Warming is a serious pending crisis" to "Dr. CFC's arguments are biased."

It seems to me that such a person has little interest in debating the topic and instead simply wants to catapult his bogus assertions.

[Random_Australian]

2. Or creationists! What eventually happens is you just say that well,

the last (x) times some git has put forward an argument supposedly backed by "solid scientific evidence", that hasn't been true in the least.

By pattern recognition, you are allowed to expect it each further time, and only if pressed do you actually need to provide an argument.

That is, the basis of ad hom is that you can talk about a lot of variables that don't relate to whether or not a persons argument is correct.

However, empirically it is seen that being full of shit is a good predictor of fallacious arguments.

Therefore, you are bringing up a variable that is an indicator of the truth of their statements.

Therefore so long as you say they're "very likely full of shit" rather than "must be full of shit" there is no fallacy.

[Orrex]

4. I've used a similar tactic against "energy healers" and "speakers with the dead"

Proponents would argue that each practitioner deserves the benefit of the doubt, when in fact the Medium du Jour is really just another example of an endlessly debunked con game, deserving no more respect or courtesy than the guy running a game of three-card-monte on the boardwalk.

I've mentioned before that I'm leery of a too literal handling of arguments ad hominem, because it seems to me that a bunch of insults in the agregate are effectively the same as saying "he's stupid, therefore his point is invalid." It's a psychological tactic, rather than a rhetorical device, but it seems to hold true in too many discussions.