[kafkaesque]

I'm not sure why you are drawing a parallel to a good doctor that smokes.

I never said "Doctor Mike" is a bad doctor. I have no idea if he is a good or bad doctor.

Further, an ad hominem is when a person attacks someone's character without any base.

I wrote specifically about him not being at the forefront and questioning his values, as displayed by his actions during the pandemic. His actions were literally not in line with Covid guidelines. Those are guidelines that were formulated by hundreds (thousands?) of doctors, all of whom sought to be at the forefront of medical science during a pandemic.

As another user said, MRI scans not corresponding to brain activity is not really news, and in at least the part of the US I live in, MRI scans are not so easily recommended, especially since they're not covered by health insurance.

Dr. Amen should be called out, of course, but it doesn't mean a doctor is at the forefront for doing so.

[foxyv]

> Further, an ad hominem is when a person attacks someone's character without any base.

An Ad-Hominem is specifically an attack on someone's arguments using some un-related attack on their character.

EG: "Dr. John's Opinions about vaccines are invalid because he smokes cigarettes." or "James assertion that the earth is round is invalid because he thinks that dogs are better than cats."

Ad-Hom is short for argumentum ad hominem. If you aren't making an argument with your attack, you are just insulting someone.

[dpark]

> I'm not sure why you are drawing a parallel to a good doctor that smokes.

Presumably because it is very analogous. You are essentially saying Dr. Mike shouldn’t be trusted because he made a bad decision. That is extremely similar to saying you shouldn’t trust a doctor’s advice because they happen to smoke.

> Further, an ad hominem is when a person attacks someone's character without any base.

No. An ad hominem is when the person is attacked rather than the argument. A terrible person can still make a perfectly sound argument. Calling them terrible doesn’t change the argument, even if it is emotionally satisfying.

> I wrote specifically about him not being at the forefront and questioning his values, as displayed by his actions during the pandemic.

You’re attacking his actions and not his recommendations. Ad hominem.

[apognwsi]

smoking is not an appropriate analogy at least insofar it is primarily damaging to the individual (claims of second hand smoke aside), whereas exposing oneself during covid is more broadly damaging as the purpose of social distancing was specifically to avoid spreading the disease, not to oneself, but to more vulnerable individuals. moreover it can be indicative that he is self-interested, that is, by acting hypocritically, while not in and of itself evidence, is consistent with 'charlatan behavior' as is, i would add, interviewing a known charlatan dr aman. aman detractors will think he is 'being shown' but the reality is that aman or similar wins legitimacy, which the interviewer knows, since his aim is entertainment, not medicine, in his capacity as an interviewer.

it is not ad-hominem to try to understand a person's motivations for expressing a particular opinion, which is why the above poster referred to 'character' which is not specific to the definition of ad-hominem, but is in the spirit thereof, that is, distracting from the argument. but if the person has shown themselves to be working contradictorily to public health policy, especially in consideration of the hippocratic oath, you may ask reasonably what they are about.

[KalMann]

> Further, an ad hominem is when a person attacks someone's character without any base.

That is not what an ad hominem is.