LSAT Logic and Ad Hominem Attacks

I love the podcast LSAT Logic in Everyday Life. It takes a good look at if people are being logical about current events. This week's episode, Cocoa-Nuts was particularly good. Not because it dissected the arguments about whether or not cocoa is good for you (it only briefly touched on these arguments) but because it talked about not dismissing an argument just because those making the argument have an interest in the outcome. It specifically touched on the fact that we, as a society, are too often inclined to dismiss study results because of the funders of the study, especially if it was funded by a corporation. While we may want to take note of potential conflicts of interest, the mere existence of self-interest is not a weakener of the logic of an argument; an argument (or study) should stand on its own evidence, not the character of a particular advocate.

I didn't intend this when I started writing this post, but I'm suddenly reminded that this is a common argument against global warming skeptics. Just because skeptics are often funded by corporations doesn't make them wrong (or right, for that matter) any more than climate change proponents being funded by governments makes them right (or wrong). The arguments must be able to stand on their own logic and evidence, not on the identities of the studies' funders.