Hacker News Reader

I’ve read this years prior. I don’t see how it’s relevant to this article. But if a whole book’s premise is invalid because of some bored dude wrote an article, then so be it.

When somebody cites a source, it's always relevant to point out that it's a bad source.

I also found useful this discussion of the topic: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/03/24/why-we-sle...

The source of an argument irrelevant to the soundness of an argument, otherwise it's an example of the genetic fallacy, a form of ad hominem, a fallacy of relevance.

That's technically true about argument in some specific contexts. But it isn't in practice true a lot of the time, and is especially irrelevant here when it's not just citing it for an argument, but as proof of the argument.

It's hard to trust a conclusion if three quarters of the argument offered in support are inaccurate. At least, it should invite a healthy dose of skepticism.

Calling the author of the article "some bored duded that wrote an article" is not a really strong argument against considering the points it made.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com