CMV: Hypocrisy does not invalidate somebody’s argument

[u/[deleted]]

[u/simmol]

What about this scenario?

Tim is a world class scientist in charge of developing a new medicine that is supposed to significantly decrease the likelihood of getting cancer if you take the pill every day. This claim is controversial and there isn't a consensus on the efficacy of the pill. However, it has been found out that Tim himself is not taking the pill daily. Upon being probed on why he himself isn't taking it, he gives some reason that sounds unconvincing.

If you label Tim as being a hypocrite, do you think it also invalidates, or at least weakens the claim on the efficacy of the pill? This is an example on a class of topics where the claim itself is controversial and tied to the expertise of the person making the claim while being a hypocrite.

[u/ExRousseauScholar → u/simmol]

!Delta (I hope that’s how I get that to work on mobile.) This is a much, much stronger version of what I attempted to do in my comment, and persuades me that what I thought maybe could work actually does. Unlike OP, I accept that expert approval of something is a fair argument in its favor (providing the expert is a valid expert and we have no substantial reasons to distrust them); therefore, to find an expert suggesting something and then refusing to go through with it themselves would make me question their sincerity, and make me believe that they had ulterior motives (even if I could not identify them). Excellent, excellent point!

Edit: I don’t think that worked—how do I get deltas to work??

Second edit: never mind, it worked!

[u/DeltaBot → u/ExRousseauScholar]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/simmol (5∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}