That's true, it just also misses the point, like most invocations of ad hominem I come across.
People have lives outside of pursuing the scientific method. To decide to engage in that pursuit means taking away time and energy from other parts of life.
The argument here then is not that the paper is wrong because of who wrote it, but instead they insinuate that it probably is, and so it likely isn't even worth the time to try and evaluate whether it is.
This is a subtle but crucial difference, as this makes the core argument a speculation rather than a straight claim, let alone a scientific claim or refutation. And so for this, the identity of the author is a crucial bit, ad hominem cannot apply.
And this is if we make the ridiculous assumption that this was any more than just someone's informal opinion, like some sort of formal argument rather.
People have lives outside of pursuing the scientific method. To decide to engage in that pursuit means taking away time and energy from other parts of life.
The argument here then is not that the paper is wrong because of who wrote it, but instead they insinuate that it probably is, and so it likely isn't even worth the time to try and evaluate whether it is.
This is a subtle but crucial difference, as this makes the core argument a speculation rather than a straight claim, let alone a scientific claim or refutation. And so for this, the identity of the author is a crucial bit, ad hominem cannot apply.
And this is if we make the ridiculous assumption that this was any more than just someone's informal opinion, like some sort of formal argument rather.