No, I didn't miss it. The fact that the ad hominem was accompanied by another argument does not change the fact that it was an ad hominem.
(The other argument was also mostly bogus IMHO, but making that case would take a lot longer.)
UPDATE: actually, I've changed my mind. The other argument can also be dispensed with rather quickly:
"Only the philosophers always make a good choice, because the ultimate thing they study, at the end, is the Form of the Good itself. Philosophy, in its purest form, contains the study of what it is to live a good human life. As Socrates said, the unexamined life is not worth living for a human being."
And what if, after decades of study, you come to the realization that Socrates was wrong and you have actually wasted your life? What if "the good life" actually involves not worrying so much about what is "the good life" and just getting on with it, going to baseball games, hiking in the woods, building a shed in the back yard?
It wasn't ad hominem. He had addressed the argument, and refers to that, before adding that Popper was an egocentric jerk. That might be abusive, but it's not ad hominem (because it's in addition, not instead of, a rebuttal of the argument).
We'll just have to agree to disagree about that. It's pretty clear to me that "egocentric jerk" was intended to impugn Popper's credibility and not just a random insult.
But if it wasn't an ad hominem, then it was a non-sequitur. Either way, it's not the most effective way to support the position the philosophy has made progress IMHO. Hence: irony.
Oh, the staggering irony of responding to the charge that philosophers don't produce anything worthwhile with an ad hominem. Res ipsa loquitur.
reply