You'd love to ruin his career and publicly shame him for having incorrect views wouldn't you?
Awarding credibility on the basis of having a public face is absurd, and it's trivial to conceive of the way that could be politically silencing of dissident views, or that lack of anonymity would incentivize sticking to consensus.
People disagree anonymously on the internet all the time, since the beginning. Are you incapable of judging the merits of an argument without requiring some appeal to authority?
What is there to judge? The original commenter is the one making an appeal to authority, then just saying they are skeptical. In short an anonymous giving their opinion. The parent is right saying it’s of way lower value than the study.
Because a study lays out a more thorough and detailed argument, not because someone's real name or credentials are attached.
The crux of my disagreement was his claim a name attached to an argument a priori makes it more valid than one that is anonymous.
In a highly politicized environment, it can possibly be argue that a real name makes it less credible and more likely to be consensus. Putting that aside, it certainly doesn't it make it more credible.
Awarding credibility on the basis of having a public face is absurd, and it's trivial to conceive of the way that could be politically silencing of dissident views, or that lack of anonymity would incentivize sticking to consensus.
People disagree anonymously on the internet all the time, since the beginning. Are you incapable of judging the merits of an argument without requiring some appeal to authority?