The traditional ad hominem is a personal attack on the character, beliefs, motivations, or characteristics of the speaker, which is why they’re considered out of bounds in polite society.
Discussing the experience and expertise that someone has in a subject when they’re making policy prescriptions is absolutely in bounds. While it sounds high minded to say that we should argue everything on the merits alone, the brutal reality is that this results in the experts (who are few) being shouted out by the amateurs (who are many).
Expertise matters; this isn’t debate club. If you’re going to start making extraordinary claims in a field you just started studying last month, you must provide extraordinary proof. Not having expertise in an area doesn’t make you a bad person, it just means that maybe we don’t have to listen to your take.
Discussing the experience and expertise that someone has in a subject when they’re making policy prescriptions is absolutely in bounds. While it sounds high minded to say that we should argue everything on the merits alone, the brutal reality is that this results in the experts (who are few) being shouted out by the amateurs (who are many).
Expertise matters; this isn’t debate club. If you’re going to start making extraordinary claims in a field you just started studying last month, you must provide extraordinary proof. Not having expertise in an area doesn’t make you a bad person, it just means that maybe we don’t have to listen to your take.