I think it’s safe to say that while what they say may be true, it’s been highly cherry-picked to cast matters into a certain light that aligns with their (and, apparently, your) preconceived notions.

Jon

“An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.”

My use of the terms was not meant to imply an attack against my person or self by you, only that your evaluation of the referenced articles as mere opinion meant that yours was an “argument against the persons” who wrote them (e.g., Ikenson), not the data being discussed, i.e., the facts.

Again, per Wiki, a fact is “something that has really occurred or is actually the case” although your selection of the lesser Wiki definition as the being “an allegation or stipulation” regards its use more as legalese, as in, “we will stipulate to the court…” usually because such stipulation is merely tangential to the real issue at hand. Thus, in the mainstream, facts need no proof, they are true by definition. If you can refute them, they weren’t facts to begin with.

That’s where your appeal to opinion comes in… hoping to persuade that the data are erroneous. I’m happy with the facts, as stated therein; if you’re not, go for the jugular on setting the record straight.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13225