> evaluate the content in context, the author is irrelevant
But the author is part of that context. Especially with this kind of content where one explains how they think people should behave we can ask the question if the author embodied the guidelines they are talking about, and if so where did it took them. Did they had an enviable life full of things the reader would find valuable?
I disagree. The speaker is not part of the context when evaluating the correctness of a given assertion. This is a fundamental fact, for example when the speaker is unknown. If it helps, in situations where you’re reading something controversial or where you’d be tempted to make unfounded inferences based on the speaker, you can simply pretend that you’ve “discovered” the assertion rather than that someone has said it to you.
Granted, it can be a bit unnerving to accept something without a human being willing to stand with you to defend it when you reach the limits of objective reality (such as the issue of varying perspective). Typically the advice here is to “stand up for what you believe in” - but honestly that’s overrated when survival is on the line (and you potentially haven’t yet absorbed the info as part of your identity).
> The speaker is not part of the context when evaluating the correctness of a given assertion.
On a philosophical level this sounds true. On a practical level evaluating correctness has costs.
If you tell me the James Webb Space Telescope detected this and that i won’t launch my own space telescope to verify it. I need to figure out if I trust you as a source. There if you are a crackpot journalist with seemingly no connection to JWST my trust will decrease, at least until i find independent sources.
And that is a hard scientific claim where in theory one can conduct an independent experiment and judge the facts for certain.
The kind of claim this one is on about is much harder to verify. It is of the form “live by these rules and you will have a better life”. There both the interpretation of the “rules” and the “better life” is fuzzy. And even if you get it right in your own experiment it will take years until you see results.
Just on a practical level. Imagine that a thin and sporty person tells you that the secret of them maintaining their healty weight is starting every day by eating two scoops of ice cream. Now imagine that the same statement is said by an obese person. In both cases it takes the same amount of effort to evaluate the correctness of their statement but which case is going to make you want to investigate it more deeply?
