a couple of those links don't work....

Speaking as a philosopher rather than a scientist, I'm not so sure ad hominem really is an out-and-out fallacy. Consider two points:

1: People often have agendas in what they research and this may creep over into the manner in which they research it. Were I an expert in statistics I might be able to critique things which I am not otherwise, but in the meantime while I might believe something contended by a neutral or 'positive' individual, I would be less likely to believe something from e.g. the discovery institute or someone that devoted their life to proving there are race differences in IQ (I'm thinking of a rather unpleasant chap I met from the LSE recently) even if I cannot say what is wrong with their work.

2: On non-scientific topics I cannot imagine the idea wouldn't come up. If someone is arguing about morality, for example, it does seem reasonable to say that there moral character might enter into the equation. TBH: This will apply to prescriptive ('you ought to....') rather than descriptive ('morality tends to work....') projects but I honestly don't believe it to be entirely irrelevant.

It is often unclear where a philosopher is leading you with an argument which seems prima facie absurd. If from nothing other than past experience I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt more often when they don't have a theistic axe to grind. Too often a bad article will be unclear and then end '... so God'.

Speaking as a scientist, and an amateur philiosopher, I would say "Of course people have agendas". Science is, at least partially, about controlling variables not removing them. The point is to read the material, evaluate the data and methodology and come to a conclusion, rather than simply dismiss the material because the author has admitted to smoking pot, adultery, taking communion or any other 'heinous' crime.

Norm, are you sure about Sicko?

Who's Really Sicko? http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010266

Stunning movie. For my Canadian perspective see my review here.

'wabisabi' has made a point that a lot of other people will likely raise in the US over the coming months.

The Canadian system undoubtedly has its flaws, as does the NHS (UK). There is no perfect system. Look anywhere and find horror stories.

However, their faults should not be accepted as valid argument against the status quo of the US system - "socialised medicine" as you call it is the lesser of evils.

Who would argue against a "socialised" fire service? Moore has done good to make this point.

The debate mustn't be railroaded by these tactics of distraction.

The debate will only have limited coverage in the media - public interest will inevitably, as with any issue, ware and tire.

So, make the most of it.

Norm, are you sure about Sicko?

Yes, I'm persuaded. Is there a perfect system out there, of course not, but world health rankings mean something. We spend approximately double on healthcare as other western democracies, and yet we are ranked way below them. How do you explain that? You can always point to anecdotal evidence to identify failures in any system. Moore does it to great effect in Sicko, but the difference between Moore and the article you cite is that Moore presents the overall picture and your article doesn't. I'll post some video later where Moore addresses some of the specific issues critics are raising. By the way CNN Anderson Cooper 360 did a fact check on Moore's claims and though they accuse him of fudging a little conclude that he is essentially correct.

Hi all, hi Norm,

This article does an incredibly good job poking more holes in Moore's 'Sicko'

'Sicko': Heavily Doctored, By Kurt Loder http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/story.jhtml

still convinced? :)

I read remainder a few months ago. Was it this site where I saw it advertised? Anway, it's not that great. I would not recommend it. I didn't pass on my copy.

Hey wabisabi, are you really going to take an MTV VJ's word for it?

I read the Kurt Loder article and he avoids the same point all the other conservatives do, and that's the fact that our healthcare system is inhumane. It doesn't matter what Moore showed you or didn't show you, what matters is that the system actually rewards people for being inhumane. We need to fix that and no amount of conservative hard-blowing should convince anyone otherwise...

I read remainder a few months ago. . . Anway, it's not that great. I would not recommend it.

What fiction have you read this year that you would recommend?

But how bad would someone have to be for you to completely disregard the findings from their research, simply on the grounds of who they were?

A liar.

I realize the article is more about the scientific community than the media, but the core question is about ad hominems, so I think Michael Moore applies here. As far as I can tell, he is frankly more trouble than he is worth.

I loved Bowling For Columbine when I watched it. But then, to be on the safe side, I went out and checked Moore's claims. I had trouble verifying some of his core statistics, and I came across evidence of deliberate character assassination against both the NRA and Charlton Heston. The attack on Heston was particularly egregious, because as far as I could tell he wasn't even distorting the facts -- he was splicing footage together in such a way as to manufacture a scene that Heston look like a racist. Since Heston was apparently an early supporter of civil rights for blacks, that makes it all the more despicable.

I haven't watched a film of his since.

So why shouldn't I just watch his films, research every claim he makes, try to determine the truths, and then evaluate those truths? Well, I really should do my homework on verifying claims that anyone makes, and, in fact, I make a serious effort to do so. But the evidence strongly suggests to me that Moore wasn't just wrong about some things, he wasn't just biased, he deliberately attempted to mislead me. He acted in bad faith. It wasn't even some spur of the moment thing; he obviously went to great lengths to do it, and must have had weeks or months to decide to do so.

I cannot assume good faith on anything he says. I cannot assume good faith for the context in which he presents his claims. Moreover, I know that some of the larger points he makes often rest very heavily on his lies and distortions. I distrust him enough that I must essentially attempt to recreate his entire argument for him. The last time I did that I found that his central arguments were highly dubious at best, that many of his facts were unverifiable or false, and that he was hurting good men in an entirely undeserved manner in the process. That's an enormous level of effort for very little gain in understanding, and I'm paying him for the privilege. That's far more respect for him than he has apparently shown for me.

And, of course, the more I treat his work as worthy of consideration, the more I encourage his sensationalist tendencies. He is rewarded for deliberately obscuring the truth, and that's likely to encourage others to follow his example. It is a fantastic waste of my time, and it encourages behaviors that will only further muddy our public discourse.

All of that having been said, Sicko is a tough call. It's about an important subject, and one that has been largely excluded from our national discourse. As much as I dislike him, that's valuable. And, if I am to participate in that discussion -- which will now almost certainly be shaped to a great extent by the arguments he presents -- I ought to be aware of the claims he makes and be armed with what I can discern to be the truth about them. This may a case where the good he's doing outweighs the problems that he causes.

But, yeah: liars. There are only so many hours in the day, and even fewer that I have to engage in debate, and I would rather spend them on whose are at least attempting to get at the truth.