The Fallacies of Personal Incredulity and Ad Hominem in Criticisms of My Work
Introduction: In a recent tweet, a user (@FrankRundatz) commented on the ongoing discussions surrounding my work and dismissed my technical explanations as mere “technobabble.” This is a common tactic employed by critics who, rather than engaging with the specific points I make, resort to vague accusations and personal attacks. The tweet is a clear example of how both personal incredulity and ad hominem fallacies are used to discredit my work without addressing the substance of the arguments. Instead of engaging with the technical achievements of systems like Terranode, critics resort to dismissing these innovations because they cannot understand or believe them. This article will explore how these fallacies are used in the context of blockchain technology, particularly in criticisms of my work, and why such dismissals only serve to reveal the ignorance of the critics.
Explainign the Fallacy and why this is wrong… The argument being presented against me by those dismissing my statements as “technobabble” is a textbook example of both personal incredulity and ad hominem fallacies. These individuals fail to provide any specific examples of what they claim to be nonsense and instead rely on general accusations that lack substance. By avoiding the details of my claims, they ensure that there is nothing concrete to debate, leaving the argument vague and nebulous.
Personal incredulity occurs when someone rejects an argument or claim simply because they cannot understand or believe it. In this case, the speaker states that my statements make no sense to them, and therefore they must be invalid. This approach is flawed because it assumes that a person’s lack of understanding is enough to discredit the argument. The speaker in this case mentions their experience in the field of technology, citing years of work and various certifications as proof that they are qualified to judge what makes sense. However, they offer no specific examples of the statements they believe to be incorrect, nor do they provide any logical or scientific reasoning for why my claims should be dismissed.
This type of argument is problematic because it does not engage with the actual content of my claims. If the speaker were to point out specific statements I have made and provide a rational explanation for why those statements are wrong, then there could be a meaningful discussion. However, by merely stating that everything I say is nonsense without giving examples or reasons, they prevent any productive debate from taking place. This is a classic case of personal incredulity because the speaker’s disbelief is based on their own limited understanding and not on any objective analysis of the facts.
Furthermore, this argument also contains elements of the ad hominem fallacy. An ad hominem attack occurs when someone attacks the person making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself. In this case, the speaker suggests that I do not understand technology and that my statements are similar to the wrong answers on a certification exam. Instead of engaging with the specifics of my claims, the speaker resorts to attacking my character and expertise, dismissing me as someone who speaks in meaningless jargon. This is a diversionary tactic that shifts the focus away from the argument and onto the individual, avoiding the need to provide a logical rebuttal.
The use of ad hominem attacks in this context is a way for the speaker to sidestep the core issue. By attacking my credibility rather than my arguments, they avoid having to engage with the actual substance of my claims. This allows them to maintain their position without having to provide evidence or reasoning to support it. It is much easier to discredit someone by attacking their character than it is to engage with their ideas in a meaningful way.
In addition to these fallacies, the speaker also avoids providing any actionable points that can be addressed. They make general statements about how my explanations sound like “technobabble” but fail to offer any specific examples or counterarguments. This makes it impossible to engage with their claims, as there is nothing concrete to respond to. If the speaker had pointed out specific statements I have made and explained why they believe those statements to be incorrect, then there could be a productive discussion. However, by leaving their accusations vague and undefined, they prevent any real debate from occurring.
This type of argumentation is common when someone lacks the knowledge or ability to engage with the subject matter at hand. Rather than admitting that they do not fully understand the complexities of the issue, they dismiss it as nonsense and attack the person making the claim. This is a defensive mechanism that allows them to avoid confronting the possibility that they may be wrong or that there are aspects of the subject they do not fully grasp.
The speaker’s reference to their certifications and experience is also a form of appeal to authority. They suggest that because they have worked in the field of technology for many years and have numerous certifications, they are qualified to judge what makes sense and what does not. However, this appeal to authority is flawed because it does not address the specific claims being made. Expertise in a field does not make someone infallible, and it does not excuse the failure to provide evidence or reasoning for their arguments. If the speaker truly understood the subject matter, they would be able to engage with the specifics of my claims rather than relying on their credentials to dismiss them.
A key example of this ignorance is the lack of understanding surrounding Terranode. Terranode has successfully scaled to handle the massive transaction throughput that I have consistently spoken about, and this is a real-world, observable system. The fact that critics dismiss this technology as impossible or incomprehensible only highlights their own ignorance. They make claims that scaling to the level I have described is impractical, yet Terranode stands as clear evidence that large-scale blockchain systems can indeed be realised. The system is up and running, and its functionality and scalability can be objectively verified. To deny its success is to ignore the reality of the situation.
What is more troubling is that these individuals continue to cling to their disbelief without ever offering a rational critique of the technology. They do not point out any specific technical flaws in Terranode’s design or operation; they simply state that it cannot work, or that it doesn’t make sense. This is a textbook case of personal incredulity. They reject the possibility of large-scale blockchain implementation, not because they have reasoned through the problem and identified legitimate concerns, but because they cannot fathom how it could work. This is not a rational position, and it does nothing to advance the discussion.
By refusing to engage with the facts and instead attacking the person presenting the argument, these critics expose their own lack of understanding. Their rejection of Terranode and its capabilities is based on their inability to grasp the technical details, not on any objective analysis of the system’s functionality. This kind of dismissal is both intellectually lazy and dishonest, as it avoids the responsibility of engaging with the argument on its merits. Instead, the critics rely on vague, unsupported claims and personal attacks to defend their position.
The scalability of Terranode is not a theoretical concept. It has been demonstrated and implemented in real-world scenarios. The fact that the system operates at a scale that many believed to be impossible only further discredits those who claim that large-scale blockchain solutions are unfeasible. The very existence of Terranode is a refutation of the arguments made by those who dismiss my work as “technobabble”. Their claims are not grounded in technical reality but in their own limited understanding of what is possible.
It is also worth noting that these individuals never provide concrete examples of the “nonsense” they claim to hear in my explanations. They don’t point to a specific moment or a particular statement and say, “This is the part I disagree with, and here is why it’s wrong.” They don’t offer counterexamples or alternatives that could be debated or discussed. Instead, they generalise and dismiss everything as if it were all one indistinguishable mass of confusion. This lack of specificity makes it impossible to engage with their arguments in a meaningful way. They are essentially saying “I don’t believe it,” without providing a single reason why it should be disbelieved.
Their attacks reveal a deeper issue: they are not interested in engaging with the truth. They have made up their minds based on their own limitations and refuse to look beyond them. This is why they resort to ad hominem and personal incredulity. These are the tools of someone who cannot debate the facts and must instead tear down the person presenting them. They hope that by discrediting me personally, they can avoid confronting the reality that Terranode and other systems like it have already proven that scaling at these levels is possible.
The arguments made against me, particularly those that dismiss my technical explanations as “technobabble”, are nothing more than a combination of personal incredulity and ad hominem attacks. These critics refuse to engage with the specifics of my claims and instead rely on vague dismissals and personal attacks to maintain their position. Their failure to recognise the success of Terranode only highlights their own ignorance and unwillingness to confront the facts. Terranode stands as proof that large-scale blockchain systems are not only possible but are already functioning in the real world. To deny this reality is to deny evidence, and it serves only to discredit those making the claims. The absence of any specific, actionable critiques further reveals the weakness of their position. They cannot engage with the facts, so they attack the person, leaving the substance of the argument untouched.
The Test…
It does not matter whether critics understand the technical details or not; the truth of any system lies in its results, not in their ability to comprehend it. When I discuss a system that scales a blockchain to thousands of times beyond what any other can achieve, the test is not found in words or opinions, but in the system itself. Terranode, for example, is a working demonstration of the scalability I have consistently advocated for, handling immense transaction throughput in a way that no other blockchain system has proven capable of.
What critics fail to grasp is that whether or not they understand the intricacies of the technology is irrelevant to its success. The performance and scalability of Terranode are observable and demonstrable. When a system like this delivers on its promises, any argument to the contrary simply cannot hold water. You cannot refute a working, scalable system by claiming it doesn’t make sense to you. Results speak for themselves, and the inability to comprehend them does not invalidate their reality.
In this case, the proof is in the implementation. The critics can dismiss or attack my explanations all they want, but at the end of the day, the system’s performance is what truly matters. Terranode has scaled blockchain technology far beyond the limitations of any competing systems, and that fact cannot be undone by their lack of understanding or their dismissal of my words as “technobabble.”
To Conclude…
This entire approach from my critics demonstrates not only their lack of knowledge and understanding but also their inability to engage with complex technology on a meaningful level. Their reliance on personal attacks and dismissals, rather than technical rebuttals, highlights the fact that they are envious of what has been achieved with systems like Terranode. The sheer scale of what has been accomplished (blockchain throughput thousands of times greater than any competitor) proves that the work is not just theoretical but practical, real, and functioning.
Their arguments crumble when faced with a system that works. Instead of offering genuine critiques or alternatives, they resort to vague accusations and attempts to discredit my character. This is not a sign of confidence in their own positions but rather a defensive reaction born of envy and frustration. They cannot refute the success of Terranode, and that inability to engage with reality exposes their ignorance.
In the end, their lack of understanding and their failure to provide substantive counterarguments only reinforce the validity of what has been achieved. It is not about whether they believe or understand; it is about the fact that the system works, and their arguments do not.
Original – https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1831250813039309122
