Hard agree. If anything, it’s an ad-professorium attack using the discredited argument as (purported) evidence.
Convincingly discrediting someone’s argument and then marveling that such error or oversight would emanate from someone so credentialed is not ad-hominem. Ad-hominem is the exact reverse.
Let us at least strive to keep our error classification and biases in good order.
Convincingly discrediting someone’s argument and then marveling that such error or oversight would emanate from someone so credentialed is not ad-hominem. Ad-hominem is the exact reverse.
Let us at least strive to keep our error classification and biases in good order.