Hankel applauds resignation of Scientific American's Editor-in-Chief

Analyzing the article

Human Events

ad hominem

weak man

Our Analysis: 2 Fallacies

In recent years, institutions that were once celebrated for their objectivity have begun veering into overt partisanship, turning away from their founding principles...

Laura Helmuth's tenure embodied this shift. Rather than maintaining neutrality, she steered Scientific American into contentious political waters, often using the magazine as a vehicle to advocate ideological "findings" that lacked scientific evidence. Her frequent social media outbursts, including incendiary remarks about voters, revealed a disturbing bias that extended beyond her personal beliefs and into the editorial direction of one of America's oldest scientific publications.

While he raises valid points about the importance of editorial neutrality in science, Isaiah Hankel engages in a curious double standard when it comes to ad hominem attacks. He criticizes Laura Helmuth essentially for making ad hominem attacks against Trump voters, but then he himself commits an ad hominem attack by assuming that her personal views on social media directly translate to bias in her editorial decisions.

Hankel's argument goes like this:

1. Helmuth makes ad hominem attacks on Trump voters: Hankel claims that Helmuth's social media posts were vitriolic and targeted Trump voters personally.

2. Therefore, Helmuth is biased in her editorial decisions: Hankel assumes that because Helmuth is highly partisan on social media, she must have been biased in her editorial decisions at Scientific American.

3. This makes her unfit to be an editor: Hankel concludes that Helmuth's alleged bias disqualifies her from being a credible editor.

This argument is flawed at step #2, above, because it commits two fallacies:

1. ad hominem • Hankel attacks Helmuth's character and motives by highlighting her social media activity, implying that her personal behavior on those platforms must result in a lack of objectivity and professionalism in her workplace. This attempts to discredit her based on her personal views without addressing the substance of her editorial work.

2. weak man • Hankel's assertion that Helmuth's conduct at Scientific American echoes her social media activity is a weak connection, as Hankel doesn't provide any evidence to support this claim. Helmuth's social media activity is apparently an easier target, as it were, for Hankel to attack.

Essentially, Hankel is guilty of the very thing he accuses Helmuth of: attacking someone's character and motives instead of engaging with their arguments. He uses Helmuth's alleged ad hominem attacks as a basis to discredit her entire editorial work, without providing any evidence that her personal views influenced her professional decisions.

If Hankel had produced examples of Helmuth making biased editorial choices that mirrored her social media activity, then it would not be a weak man argument. But no such examples exist in Hankel's essay. For an opinion piece that makes a similar critique as Hankel's but also provides substantiating examples, see here.

References

Isaiah Hankel (2024, Nov 19). The resignation of Scientific American's editor-in-chief is great for humanity.
https://humanevents.com/2024/11/19/isaiah-hankel-the-resignation-of-scientific-americans-editor-in-chief-is-great-for-humanity

Comments

In order to participate in the conversation, head over to your account and setup a Screen Name

In order to participate in the conversation, you must sign in.

In order to participate in the conversation, you must sign up or sign in.

Disclaimer

Note that there being one or more apparent fallacies in the arguments presented in this article does not mean that every argument the arguer made was fallacious, nor does it mean there are not other arguments in existence for the same or similar position that are logically valid. Also note that checking for fallacies is not the same as verification of the premises the arguer starts from, such as facts that the arguer asserts or principles that the arguer assumes as the foundation for constructing arguments. For more about this, see our 'What is Fallacy Checking?'

NO AI TRAINING

Without in any way limiting the author’s [and publisher’s] exclusive rights under copyright, any use of this publication to “train” generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to generate text is expressly prohibited. The author reserves all rights to license uses of this work for generative AI training and development of machine learning language models.