I think the point is that at some point, the "thought leaders" start to lose relevance when they're not day-to-day practitioners. I'm not saying it is or isn't true about Beck (I've always enjoyed listening to him speak), but is critical thinking we should apply to anyone.

That's not critical thinking though, it's fallacious thinking. Whether or not someone is a "thought leader" has no bearing on the quality of the article.

Would the article have gotten as much traction if it had been written anonymously? If there's an appeal to authority, then an evaluation is appropriate.

Where is the appeal to authority? I'm not seeing it.

In the title of the post “- by Kent Beck”

How is that an appeal to authority?

Why submit it like that, but to indicate to readers why this article is worth reading? HN guidelines say to submit the title as is, without additional qualifiers or commentary. (Fortunately, the mods updated it)

I can't speak for the person who posted it. Seems like it could have been an honest mistake to me.

An "appeal to authority" means something more specific (e.g. the logical fallacy "argument from authority") and this is not happening here.

The whole point I'm trying to make is that we should evaluate the writing based on its content. The person I originally responded to was dismissing it solely because of the person who wrote it (which ironically an ad hominem is a fallacy very similar to an appeal to authority but for the opposite reason).

look at any of the bullet points in the article. it's very hard to constructivly criticise any of them, they are all so vapid. typical of beck's writings.

Well if it's so hard to criticise them, that could be an indication that there is some truth in them.

> they are all so vapid

I like that he doesn't make sweeping statements. Because in software development, to quote another great author, there is no silver bullet.

That's not a popular story to tell when you're writing a book or speaking in a conference, people like to hear simple black and white statements. But the fact of the matter is, reality is much more nuanced.

I think it's more likely that if you can't find anything constructive to say about it, that maybe you don't have a valid argument (your original post was an ad hominem attack after all).

not ad hominem - i know nothing about him as a person. i have read 3 or 4 of his books (have you?) and found them pretty worthless.

no, it isn't. ad hominem is attacking a person. i was criticising his writings.

You are attacking the person's writing capability, implying that the article is not good because they wrote something before that you disagreed with. You're trying to argue semantics here, but it doesn't really matter because either way your argument is fallacious.

Yes, "all a bit pants" really plumbs the depths of intellectual critique.