The 'logical fallacies' are incredibly useful tools; thank you for raising such an important subject. Most "arguments" these days embrace multiple examples as rational discourse appears to have been erased by the SOP of 'de-legitimization', a tactic and strategy employed by the Alinsky-esque political rabble and the Machiavellian maniacs of WEF/WHO/UNEP, all fanatics currently attempting to subvert prosperity, humanity, life, liberty and happiness across the World.
Yet others appear to contend that, <"The key to healthy debate is making Pro Hominem Arguments, disagreeing freely, while embracing each others’ characters, as in “I love you, and I think you’re wrong.” Hume said “Truth springs from arguments amongst friends.”> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ambigamy/201412/pro-hominem-arguments
Such a contention would perhaps pivot on an altruism of strength, integrity, honesty, and the saintly nature of the human relationship? It seems more prevalent that 'relationships' have descended into a rank reflexive madness seen in a mob. The commanded aspiration of 'loving thy neighbour as thyself' becomes incredibly more difficult with each passing day.
So far, I have observed a legion of fractured families and friendships that litter the barren, lethal landscape of the synthetic polynucleotide sequence and its toxic LNP delivery vector. These emphatic divisions appear irrevocable. Only today I learned of a patient whose immediate in-laws are devoted jab aficionados even though one of them, an erstwhile fit man in his forties, is recently crippled with peri/myocarditis, who refutes any association with shots, believes his 'baffled' docs explicitly, and awaits yet another booster with unbridled glee.
There appears more afoot that cements in place such implacable unquestioning compliance (Desmet touched on it, though I question his underlying rationale).
The 'pro homine' seems an inverted version of the 'tu quoque' discussion, a technique that aims to de-legitimize the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy.
As you eloquently write, "In our topsy-turvy ever-changing wartime landscape a great deal rides on emotional response, on prejudice, on bias, on the wish to have one’s wishes come to fruition. I understand that well enough, but we must always be on our guard against allowing our reason to be thus overridden."
In 2020, the global plan was engaged that would over-ride a majority of humanity's "reasoning.' So far, slightly more than 71% of the people of the World were persuaded, compelled, cajoled, or willingly got their synthetic polynucleotide/LNP shots.
Reason departed when the fox ravaged the hen house. We're now down to instinctual self-preservation.
“Do not proffer sympathy to the mentally ill; it is a bottomless pit. Tell them firmly, “I am not paid to listen to this drivel — you are a terminal fool!” Otherwise, they make you as crazy as they are.”
That's what I try to tell my friends about Nikki Haley. Burroughs is an interesting point to relate to Doc's essay. Many (including people and thinkers I respect), TOTALLY denigrate him (and Allen Ginsberg) based on their "disgusting pedophilia" beliefs and actions. Without debating the details, validity/invalidity of the accusations, isn't that part of the ad hominem thing to simply dismiss their work based on their "character?" This seems fairly common when dealing with art and artists -- shooting the messenger regardless of the content.
Character assassination is another technique, as are accusations of plagiarism, which we've seen lately. Obviously we should judge people by their deeds and not their words alone, but when the person in question is a writer, their words ARE their deeds.
Generally agree. I've never been comfortable with pervasive "judging" to begin with. And there seems to be a lot of that going around, including on the alleged "freedom" side that (justifiably) condemns "wokeism" for being repulsively .... judgmental.
I have been using another ad homenim attack on all the expert immunologists who promised that the Covid vaccine would stop infection and transmission. Once it became apparent that they were clearly wrong, they all lost all credibility for me, and nothing else they could say really mattered after that. Would you call that legitimate reasoning by me ? Or simply bias ?
No, you looked at the data and saw that they were wrong and then you attacked them for purveying falsehoods -- you didn't ignore the data and simply attack them. Yours was a justified response against liars or ignoramuses. You didn't try to evade the data by attacking them.
I too have deleted, unsubscribed and ignored in general all those who refuse to acknowledge the depth of this attack on us. Legitimate reasoning for sure as we only have so much time to research and form our opinions, theories and hypotheses, and that time may well be shortening too.
Hopefully most will soon have a full understanding of what's actually at the root of all this soon. What KarlC on substack has shown today is the closest to this that I have seen to date. Every medical professional that is open minded should be aware that what he has discovered is not only possible, but likely in us all from my observations.
When showing a doctor recently what I was seeing in the blood on a slide, I was called an "anti placebo", and take that as a compliment. Is there any other interpretation possible?
This is exactly the thing that is changing. Reality gave a big slap to so many people who were sheltered from it. Their reality bubbles popped!
“Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.” - Robert Anton Wilson
G'day NZD, Not every rifle, machine gun or bomb killed but the intent was definitely there. I went to school with blokes who were alright by me but they murdered, raped, bashed & stole from people. I still don't get it but there you go. We were taught the same things, played sport together, went to church, nightclubs,etc. Pick the right path, find the right people & stick to it. I'm not into Chinese whispers, I'll find out things for myself. Have a great Christmas.👍🇦🇺⛄🎄🎁🍻
Must admit that as far as the moonlandings were a hoax theories go I'd previously thought "interesting but unlikely". Now I think there was a big motive for it, the Americans had overpromised in the early 60s and they'd figured they were not going to succeed. So.... (who knows).
I figure the bigger successes of the Americans though were a committment to free speech and basing your nation on democratic principles (long corrupted).
ah, I will have more to say about Apollo soon ... I was on my first ever plane flight and I looked up at the moon on the day of Apollo 11's 'landing' .... it's been a hard disillusionment for me too
The US has been the empire of lies for a long time - Pearl Harbour, Gulf of Tonkin, Iraks’ (inexistent) WMD, 9/11... seems a lot of these false flags were intended to get some war(s) going (or going into). I stumbled on the Moon landing a couple years ago, when I realized that everything should actually be questioned (thanks to Covid for lifting the veil); I watched the excellent American Moon documentary that night and then couldn’t sleep for the rest of the night... Beyond the prestige that the Us wanted to bestow upon itself with this impossible exploit, my assumption is that NASA is another $ laundering organization for the US government. Looking forward to your post on the matter. You write beautifully too. Thank you for your humanity.
Thought-provoking read, and one I will come back to.
My one quibble is grounded in the fact that we tend to be social primates first, truth-seekers second. I can't help but to see Cartesian subject-object duality as more of a heuristics to catch our biases rather than metaphysical insight. So this gives some credence to the argument that all truths, if we dig deep enough, are provisional social constructs.
What prompted me to write the above was my reaction to the following:
"What if a nation has achieved a phenomenal triumph which is hailed universally as unique, beneficent and inspiring? Would that nation’s depredations be forgiven? Would this magnificent accomplishment and the enduring halo of its glow serve to run cover for its less palatable activities?"
I could not help but to think of this same line of thinking as applied to artists, entertainers, and other social influencers. Those in marketing and advertising reap huge profits on their assumption that we are easy prey to the pro homine fallacy.
Thank you for raising the profile of this all-too-human weakness. Or is it a feature, not a bug? I wonder about the evolutionary pressures that have led to such a phenomenon.
thank you Steve ... yes, we are emotional organisms above all, which is why reason and logic have had such a hard road -- and I believe they only win out when they are linked to power, but that's another essay!
Even those who comment under a pseudonym on Substack quickly gain a reputation.
One's reputation colours all interactions.
It also limits the commenter, making *free speech* elusive.
The plandemic has taught skepticism for traditional accredited experts, but in sorting through the opinions, as a matter of expediency new leaders appear. And some we know to be gaining our confidence in order to lead us astray.
-Do you have an opinion on Ireland's Connor McGregor?-
Some leaders have half the story, which is twice as much as those needing a leader. I can't get the hackneyed Jack Nicholson line out of my head. 'You want the truth - you can't handle the truth.' Bit by gradual bit it'll all come out.
The medical logo is of two snakes (a symbol with multiple meanings) standing their full length topped by wings (Mercury, or meditative thought).
The operation may well be to get good folks courageous enough to use their *own* brains.
'With enough courage, you can do without a reputation.' -Margaret Mitchell
Especially when we are dealing with something as unexpected, sophisticated, unwarranted and dastardly as this. Its those who never trusted the authorities that seem to have avoided the worst of it so far as they are more streetwise.
This was also found in the only decent survey I saw of who took the poison. A small group of highly intelligent and a larger grouping of those who had previous dealings with untrustworthy authorities were the most unjabbed. The best research I am seeing today comes from a mixed grouping of these people.
Hey Doc, thank you for bringing this up. One of the most important things one can do in their quest for understanding is to study the logical fallacies, both formal and informal. Don't just glance at them, burn them into your brain, write them on cue cards you can pull out at a moment's notice. This is intellectual armour of the first order, as is an understanding of 'general semantics.'
Alfred Korzybski did the heavy lifting, and Stuart Chase wrote an easy to read summary of his work.
Mannie, hectic out there with the Whistleblower trying to be suffocated by the pillow of the State media, a crack that may let the light in? Viewing NZ Drs SOS, good. Stay safe.
In rugby, ad hominem would equate to playing the man, not the ball, and would be a foul. I am at war with my G.P. cos she did bad things in my healthcare, and now she is trying to discredit me by foul means, and her goodwill seems paper thin. I thought she was doing passive/aggressive during my phone consult, and trying to discredit me by making up lies about me, hoping that I will either die or leave. So much for the Hippocratic oath. The goodwill was as thin as the letter they have sent me with legal speak about what they will do if I keep challenging their authoritarian views. I might forward that letter to Doc cos I think he would have something to say about it. It is classic woke passive/aggressive authoritarian dogma, aimed at controlling the narrative, regardless of the truth. That is how they work.
I feel for you ... I personally never want to see an establishment doctor again if I can help it. Remember that in NZ you can complain to the Health and Disabilities Commission ... hang in there.
I think the Covid vaccine era has been a boon for idiopathic (establishment) doctors, cos they no longer have to worry if their patients die, cos many people are now routinely dying, and the coroner is no longer interested. I could have easily died of heart failure, and my GP would never be held to account. My G.P. refused to continue my special hormone treatment, so I instructed her to monitor the changes and do blood tests. 8 months later, when I found a doctor to prescribe more hormones for me, my free testosterone level was only 69, when the minimum for me is 194, and now I have permanent weakness and heart damage = AF, and weak appetite, memory, concentration, and super chronic fatigue/weakness cos I have the hormone function of 150 year old, and my GP denies responsibility for any of her choices or actions. I think her only disappointment is that I am still alive. I told Dr Harrison that 69 was a fatal level of free T, fit for a dead person, and my heart was perfectly OK till she left me at risk like that for 6 months. Health +Disabilities was not concerned about the preventable damage that has happened to my heart and hormone system, or the fact that I could now die any time now, at 66yo. Now we are at war, but I havent told them that my heart wants revenge. That would really have them up in arms, as you would see from their letter of lies to me. I have had more bio-identical hormones for 2 years now, but my hormone system is permanently weakened now, so I have little to lose. I think those lying women are worried.
My take is slightly different, as it alludes to a personal aspect ... authorities are impersonal -- which is why I prefer pro homine -- if I understand your comment correctly, that is.
Appeal to Authority can take both forms. For example, the authority of a political theory, such as Marxist-Leninism in the USSR, or an appeal to a prominent individual, such as the head of a university faculty or religious order.
Pro homine works as well, but it assumes some knowledge of Latin, which most people today don't possess. Even those of us who do struggle with declension and cases. Latin has even more cases than Russian, which is itself a nightmare even for native speakers:)
Very interesting. Perhaps this is what the CEO of Te Whatu Ora was doing when she said the recent whistle blower was not a vaccinologist or epidemiologist, implying we could therefore simply ignore him and/or the data. It's quite subtle, other than to those of us with highly attuned ears
Ad hominem is the stock in trade of people who have no argument. A related form is known as 'shooting the messenger.'
The 'logical fallacies' are incredibly useful tools; thank you for raising such an important subject. Most "arguments" these days embrace multiple examples as rational discourse appears to have been erased by the SOP of 'de-legitimization', a tactic and strategy employed by the Alinsky-esque political rabble and the Machiavellian maniacs of WEF/WHO/UNEP, all fanatics currently attempting to subvert prosperity, humanity, life, liberty and happiness across the World.
Yet others appear to contend that, <"The key to healthy debate is making Pro Hominem Arguments, disagreeing freely, while embracing each others’ characters, as in “I love you, and I think you’re wrong.” Hume said “Truth springs from arguments amongst friends.”> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ambigamy/201412/pro-hominem-arguments
Such a contention would perhaps pivot on an altruism of strength, integrity, honesty, and the saintly nature of the human relationship? It seems more prevalent that 'relationships' have descended into a rank reflexive madness seen in a mob. The commanded aspiration of 'loving thy neighbour as thyself' becomes incredibly more difficult with each passing day.
So far, I have observed a legion of fractured families and friendships that litter the barren, lethal landscape of the synthetic polynucleotide sequence and its toxic LNP delivery vector. These emphatic divisions appear irrevocable. Only today I learned of a patient whose immediate in-laws are devoted jab aficionados even though one of them, an erstwhile fit man in his forties, is recently crippled with peri/myocarditis, who refutes any association with shots, believes his 'baffled' docs explicitly, and awaits yet another booster with unbridled glee.
There appears more afoot that cements in place such implacable unquestioning compliance (Desmet touched on it, though I question his underlying rationale).
The 'pro homine' seems an inverted version of the 'tu quoque' discussion, a technique that aims to de-legitimize the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy.
As you eloquently write, "In our topsy-turvy ever-changing wartime landscape a great deal rides on emotional response, on prejudice, on bias, on the wish to have one’s wishes come to fruition. I understand that well enough, but we must always be on our guard against allowing our reason to be thus overridden."
In 2020, the global plan was engaged that would over-ride a majority of humanity's "reasoning.' So far, slightly more than 71% of the people of the World were persuaded, compelled, cajoled, or willingly got their synthetic polynucleotide/LNP shots.
Reason departed when the fox ravaged the hen house. We're now down to instinctual self-preservation.
William Burroughs summed it up quite nicely:
“Do not proffer sympathy to the mentally ill; it is a bottomless pit. Tell them firmly, “I am not paid to listen to this drivel — you are a terminal fool!” Otherwise, they make you as crazy as they are.”
That's what I try to tell my friends about Nikki Haley. Burroughs is an interesting point to relate to Doc's essay. Many (including people and thinkers I respect), TOTALLY denigrate him (and Allen Ginsberg) based on their "disgusting pedophilia" beliefs and actions. Without debating the details, validity/invalidity of the accusations, isn't that part of the ad hominem thing to simply dismiss their work based on their "character?" This seems fairly common when dealing with art and artists -- shooting the messenger regardless of the content.
Character assassination is another technique, as are accusations of plagiarism, which we've seen lately. Obviously we should judge people by their deeds and not their words alone, but when the person in question is a writer, their words ARE their deeds.
Generally agree. I've never been comfortable with pervasive "judging" to begin with. And there seems to be a lot of that going around, including on the alleged "freedom" side that (justifiably) condemns "wokeism" for being repulsively .... judgmental.
thank you for that very rich and enlightening commentary!
I have been using another ad homenim attack on all the expert immunologists who promised that the Covid vaccine would stop infection and transmission. Once it became apparent that they were clearly wrong, they all lost all credibility for me, and nothing else they could say really mattered after that. Would you call that legitimate reasoning by me ? Or simply bias ?
No, you looked at the data and saw that they were wrong and then you attacked them for purveying falsehoods -- you didn't ignore the data and simply attack them. Yours was a justified response against liars or ignoramuses. You didn't try to evade the data by attacking them.
I too have deleted, unsubscribed and ignored in general all those who refuse to acknowledge the depth of this attack on us. Legitimate reasoning for sure as we only have so much time to research and form our opinions, theories and hypotheses, and that time may well be shortening too.
Hopefully most will soon have a full understanding of what's actually at the root of all this soon. What KarlC on substack has shown today is the closest to this that I have seen to date. Every medical professional that is open minded should be aware that what he has discovered is not only possible, but likely in us all from my observations.
When showing a doctor recently what I was seeing in the blood on a slide, I was called an "anti placebo", and take that as a compliment. Is there any other interpretation possible?
I love your deep down analysis!
This is exactly the thing that is changing. Reality gave a big slap to so many people who were sheltered from it. Their reality bubbles popped!
“Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.” - Robert Anton Wilson
G'day NZD, Not every rifle, machine gun or bomb killed but the intent was definitely there. I went to school with blokes who were alright by me but they murdered, raped, bashed & stole from people. I still don't get it but there you go. We were taught the same things, played sport together, went to church, nightclubs,etc. Pick the right path, find the right people & stick to it. I'm not into Chinese whispers, I'll find out things for myself. Have a great Christmas.👍🇦🇺⛄🎄🎁🍻
.
Some People Will Shoot Anything Into Their Bodies.
But The Children ...
The Children Of These People
Never Stood A Chance
- Dead Or Alive
.
Must admit that as far as the moonlandings were a hoax theories go I'd previously thought "interesting but unlikely". Now I think there was a big motive for it, the Americans had overpromised in the early 60s and they'd figured they were not going to succeed. So.... (who knows).
I figure the bigger successes of the Americans though were a committment to free speech and basing your nation on democratic principles (long corrupted).
very good points, but that tremendous moon spectacle was something else altogether!
I was sad and didn't want to believe the "conspiracy theories" due to staying up to watch it live being one of my best early memories. Shame.
ah, I will have more to say about Apollo soon ... I was on my first ever plane flight and I looked up at the moon on the day of Apollo 11's 'landing' .... it's been a hard disillusionment for me too
The US has been the empire of lies for a long time - Pearl Harbour, Gulf of Tonkin, Iraks’ (inexistent) WMD, 9/11... seems a lot of these false flags were intended to get some war(s) going (or going into). I stumbled on the Moon landing a couple years ago, when I realized that everything should actually be questioned (thanks to Covid for lifting the veil); I watched the excellent American Moon documentary that night and then couldn’t sleep for the rest of the night... Beyond the prestige that the Us wanted to bestow upon itself with this impossible exploit, my assumption is that NASA is another $ laundering organization for the US government. Looking forward to your post on the matter. You write beautifully too. Thank you for your humanity.
Spreading "democracy" around the world by force.
Woke - ism, thanks to the US has justified the death of free speech.
Moon landing - a good lesson that was. Don't know why it's not used as a metaphor more often. Is it a bit taboo.
Very well-written, Emanuel.
Thought-provoking read, and one I will come back to.
My one quibble is grounded in the fact that we tend to be social primates first, truth-seekers second. I can't help but to see Cartesian subject-object duality as more of a heuristics to catch our biases rather than metaphysical insight. So this gives some credence to the argument that all truths, if we dig deep enough, are provisional social constructs.
What prompted me to write the above was my reaction to the following:
"What if a nation has achieved a phenomenal triumph which is hailed universally as unique, beneficent and inspiring? Would that nation’s depredations be forgiven? Would this magnificent accomplishment and the enduring halo of its glow serve to run cover for its less palatable activities?"
I could not help but to think of this same line of thinking as applied to artists, entertainers, and other social influencers. Those in marketing and advertising reap huge profits on their assumption that we are easy prey to the pro homine fallacy.
Thank you for raising the profile of this all-too-human weakness. Or is it a feature, not a bug? I wonder about the evolutionary pressures that have led to such a phenomenon.
Cheers from Japan,
steve
thank you Steve ... yes, we are emotional organisms above all, which is why reason and logic have had such a hard road -- and I believe they only win out when they are linked to power, but that's another essay!
Even those who comment under a pseudonym on Substack quickly gain a reputation.
One's reputation colours all interactions.
It also limits the commenter, making *free speech* elusive.
The plandemic has taught skepticism for traditional accredited experts, but in sorting through the opinions, as a matter of expediency new leaders appear. And some we know to be gaining our confidence in order to lead us astray.
-Do you have an opinion on Ireland's Connor McGregor?-
Some leaders have half the story, which is twice as much as those needing a leader. I can't get the hackneyed Jack Nicholson line out of my head. 'You want the truth - you can't handle the truth.' Bit by gradual bit it'll all come out.
The medical logo is of two snakes (a symbol with multiple meanings) standing their full length topped by wings (Mercury, or meditative thought).
The operation may well be to get good folks courageous enough to use their *own* brains.
'With enough courage, you can do without a reputation.' -Margaret Mitchell
Hi Cairn,
100%. The more we get fooled, the more gun shy as well. m
If a janitor has a good idea...
Is it any less valid than the same good idea when the CEO says it?
What about the same idea but from an ex con?
Someone with lots of emotional baggage?
A druggy?
A pharmacist?
The man who owns the local bottle store?
These characters really don't matter
It's the same damned idea
What really matters is how we use that idea
Or whether we choose to ignore it
Especially when we are dealing with something as unexpected, sophisticated, unwarranted and dastardly as this. Its those who never trusted the authorities that seem to have avoided the worst of it so far as they are more streetwise.
This was also found in the only decent survey I saw of who took the poison. A small group of highly intelligent and a larger grouping of those who had previous dealings with untrustworthy authorities were the most unjabbed. The best research I am seeing today comes from a mixed grouping of these people.
well and eloquently put, Conrad, thank you
Hey Doc, thank you for bringing this up. One of the most important things one can do in their quest for understanding is to study the logical fallacies, both formal and informal. Don't just glance at them, burn them into your brain, write them on cue cards you can pull out at a moment's notice. This is intellectual armour of the first order, as is an understanding of 'general semantics.'
Alfred Korzybski did the heavy lifting, and Stuart Chase wrote an easy to read summary of his work.
https://www.holybooks.com/science-and-sanity-by-alfred-korzybski/
https://oceanofpdf.com/?s=Stuart%20Chase-The%20Tyranny%20of%20Words.pdf
Tinder for tender thought, thank you!
Pro Homine new one, good, akin to steel-manning versus straw-manning?
And as a Voluntaryist NO collective's "depredations" should be forgiven or justified as for the "Greater Good" (grater bad).
Get free, stay free.
Mannie, hectic out there with the Whistleblower trying to be suffocated by the pillow of the State media, a crack that may let the light in? Viewing NZ Drs SOS, good. Stay safe.
Well written. Inspires contemplation.
thank you!
In rugby, ad hominem would equate to playing the man, not the ball, and would be a foul. I am at war with my G.P. cos she did bad things in my healthcare, and now she is trying to discredit me by foul means, and her goodwill seems paper thin. I thought she was doing passive/aggressive during my phone consult, and trying to discredit me by making up lies about me, hoping that I will either die or leave. So much for the Hippocratic oath. The goodwill was as thin as the letter they have sent me with legal speak about what they will do if I keep challenging their authoritarian views. I might forward that letter to Doc cos I think he would have something to say about it. It is classic woke passive/aggressive authoritarian dogma, aimed at controlling the narrative, regardless of the truth. That is how they work.
I feel for you ... I personally never want to see an establishment doctor again if I can help it. Remember that in NZ you can complain to the Health and Disabilities Commission ... hang in there.
I think the Covid vaccine era has been a boon for idiopathic (establishment) doctors, cos they no longer have to worry if their patients die, cos many people are now routinely dying, and the coroner is no longer interested. I could have easily died of heart failure, and my GP would never be held to account. My G.P. refused to continue my special hormone treatment, so I instructed her to monitor the changes and do blood tests. 8 months later, when I found a doctor to prescribe more hormones for me, my free testosterone level was only 69, when the minimum for me is 194, and now I have permanent weakness and heart damage = AF, and weak appetite, memory, concentration, and super chronic fatigue/weakness cos I have the hormone function of 150 year old, and my GP denies responsibility for any of her choices or actions. I think her only disappointment is that I am still alive. I told Dr Harrison that 69 was a fatal level of free T, fit for a dead person, and my heart was perfectly OK till she left me at risk like that for 6 months. Health +Disabilities was not concerned about the preventable damage that has happened to my heart and hormone system, or the fact that I could now die any time now, at 66yo. Now we are at war, but I havent told them that my heart wants revenge. That would really have them up in arms, as you would see from their letter of lies to me. I have had more bio-identical hormones for 2 years now, but my hormone system is permanently weakened now, so I have little to lose. I think those lying women are worried.
I think you mean "appeal to authority."
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/
My take is slightly different, as it alludes to a personal aspect ... authorities are impersonal -- which is why I prefer pro homine -- if I understand your comment correctly, that is.
Appeal to Authority can take both forms. For example, the authority of a political theory, such as Marxist-Leninism in the USSR, or an appeal to a prominent individual, such as the head of a university faculty or religious order.
Pro homine works as well, but it assumes some knowledge of Latin, which most people today don't possess. Even those of us who do struggle with declension and cases. Latin has even more cases than Russian, which is itself a nightmare even for native speakers:)
take a look at classical Greek!
Very interesting. Perhaps this is what the CEO of Te Whatu Ora was doing when she said the recent whistle blower was not a vaccinologist or epidemiologist, implying we could therefore simply ignore him and/or the data. It's quite subtle, other than to those of us with highly attuned ears