Self-study
In his new book on his complex scientific research, Support R frequently imputes bad faith to researchers disagreeing with him. █ █████████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████████ ████ █████ ██████████████ ███████ ███████ █████ █████████ ████ ██████████ █████ █████████████ ███████ ███ ██ ████ ████ █ ███ █████ █████ ███████ ██ ██ █████████ ██████ ██████████ ███ █████████ █████ ██████ ███ ██ ███████ █████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ███ █████ █████████ ████ ███████ ██████████████
Summarize Argument
The author of the book review concludes that R’s book doesn’t deserve attention from serious professionals because R frequently attributes bad faith to his critics, R believes that investigators’ funding sources determine what types of “findings” they report, and R often acts arrogant, overly ambitious, and nasty.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where the author attacks the person making an argument instead of the argument itself. In this instance, the author of the book review says that R’s book doesn’t merit attention from serious professionals because R is an unpleasant person who accuses his critics of bad things. Rather than attempting to point out issues with R’s book, the author just points out issues with R.
1.
The author of the book ██████ ███████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ███████
a
using an attack ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████████ █████████
This is the flaw the author commits. Rather than criticizing R’s book, the author criticizes R and cites those criticisms of R as why R isn’t competent on matters of scientific substance.
b
taking it for ███████ ████ ██ ████████████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████ ████████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ █████ ███████ ███ █████████████
The author doesn’t make this assumption. The author accuses R of making this assumption.
c
dismissing a scientific ██████ ██ ██████ █ ██████ ███████ ██ ██
The author doesn’t give an account of R’s theory. The author just argues that R’s book shouldn’t receive attention from serious professionals because R has character flaws.
d
presenting as facts ███████ ██████████ █████ ███ ████ █████ ██████ ████ ███ █████ ████ ██ ██████ ██████████ ███ █████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████
The author doesn’t make several assertions about the book. The author only makes several assertions about R and why R’s behavior proves that R’s book doesn’t deserve serious consideration.
e
failing to distinguish ███████ ███ ████████ ██ █████ ████ ███ ██ █████ ████████████ ███████████ ██ █████ █████████
The author isn’t concerned with whether R’s book is true or interesting. The author only argues that R’s book doesn’t merit attention from serious professionals because of R’s character flaws.