Is there a mirror immage to the 'ad hominem' fallacy?

Recently, the famed industrialist (Paypal, Tesla, Space X) Elon Musk, asserted a view that seems somewhat dubious. He told an interviewer “…there is only a “one in billions” chance that we’re not living in a computer simulation.”

Musk goes on to state: “if we’re not living in a simulation, we could be approaching the end of the world….. Forty years ago we had Pong. Like, two rectangles and a dot. That was what games were.” “Now, 40 years later, we have photorealistic, 3D simulations with millions of people playing simultaneously, and it's getting better every year. Soon we'll have virtual reality, augmented reality. “If you assume any rate of improvement at all, then the games will become indistinguishable from reality, even if that rate of advancement drops by a thousand from what it is now. Then you just say, okay, let's imagine it's 10,000 years in the future, which is nothing on the evolutionary scale. “So given that we're clearly on a trajectory to have games that are indistinguishable from reality, and those games could be played on any set-top box or on a PC or whatever, and there would probably be billions of such computers or set-top boxes, it would seem to follow that the odds that we're in base reality is one in billions.”

However, Musk was not the first to put forth this view. Philosopher Nick Bostrom put forward the idea that we may live in a computer simulation run by our descendants in 2003; however, Bostrom’s view was not widely accepted and garnered little attention. Musk’s view on the other hand (given his engineering acumen and tangible entrepreneurial accomplishments) was apparently considered highly credible, and widely embraced by the scientific community.

[Note: Musk’s choice of language leads me to believe his assertion is predicated on his view of ‘logic’ or ‘probability’ and IMOP is not a Belief, per se.]

The widespread popular acceptance of Musk’s assertion (with the flimsiest of backing) strikes me as a likely logical fallacy, a mirror image or ’flipside’ of the widely acknowledged ‘ad hominem’ (AGAINST the man) fallacy. While apparently not yet recognized by logicians, I suggest we call it the “Pro Homine” (“FOR the man/person") Fallacy.

The rationale for it is as follows:
In a classic ad hominem fallacy the detractor/attacker of an assertion (i.e., proposition, theory, proof, etc.) typically disparages the credentials of the issuer, e.g.” your dissenting view on String Theory cannot possibly be correct given you do not have a PhD in Physics.” Embedded in this fallacious view is the absence of addressing/examining/analyzing the veracity of the assertion itself – this is simply ignored. The attack is on the qualifications of the issuer, hence the fallacy.

In the ‘Pro Homine’ fallacy we have an analogous disregard for (examining/analyzing) the veracity of the assertion. Instead, we have what can approach a blind acceptance of it, based this time on the perceived ‘superlative qualifications’ of the issuer. In my view, where this can be shown to exist, it constitutes an equal (and opposite) fallacy.

My question to this forum is: Do you agree with this fallacy? And if yes, what (if any) limits should be placed on it?

I was almost going to say the same thing as Bo, well kind of Rich. I see the attack on his education as an appeal to authority because the claim is a physicist is or seems to be the proper person for the viewpoint. I didn't see it as an attack on the man or ad hom as much as a claim to who has the knowledge for the subject that is being discussed. Btw On you tube there is an interesting talk by Chuck Missler, he's an information technologist , about some of the "myths of science". One aspect about reality that is interesting is the volumetric ratio of all atoms. Basically in an analogy it can be explained like this. Knock on the "solid" wall next to you every second. Say substance one second and then for the next 30 million years say empty space every second. That's our reality.

@ Bo Bennett
I agree with much of your reply but you MAY have failed to address my question:

1.” In cognitive psychology there is something called the Halo Effect, which fits this description perfectly…..”

-I agree, it does fit, but does it (The Halo Effect) constitute (in your view) or is it widely acknowledged to constitute a Logical Fallacy? It does not appear on you extensive list. That was the heart of my question, whether there exists a ‘mirror image’ to the ad hominem fallacy, which I’ve labeled ‘pro homine’ (and if not, why not)?

2.” I would also throw in an appeal to authority fallacy because people are likely confusing his business expertise for expertise is the related fields that would make him an expert on simulated worlds.”

-First, let me cede, for sake of argument, that people MAY be doing as you suggest, confusing Musk’s business acumen for technical expertise in recognizing simulated worlds.

Let’s provide another example:

-Albert Einstein was long on record for opposing the concept of Quantum Entanglement, which he derisively termed “Spooky action at a distance.”
His views (expressed in a co-authored paper in 1935) arguably dissuaded a generation or more physicists from further exploring these phenomena. Quite recently, several physicists have independently verified the existence of QE, almost certainly proving Einstein wrong.

I submit: a. widespread acceptance of Einstein’s views by the scientific community constituted a logical fallacy (which, again, I term ‘pro homine’) suggesting his preeminence as the leading physicist of his generation persuaded many of his peers to accept his QE denial, unquestioned, and b. the “Appeal to Authority” fallacy fails to apply in this example, since Einstein’s acknowledged expertise in Physics was beyond reproach.

Second, I note parenthetically the “Appeal to Authority” fallacy treads on dangerous ground, as it comes precariously close to constituting an ‘ad hominem’ fallacy itself. Your example, “people are likely confusing his (Musk's) business expertise for expertise is the related fields that would make him an expert on simulated worlds” would seem an apt illustration of levying an ad hominem fallacy, i.e., failing to address the substance of his assertion, instead questioning his credentials in this field.

Again. My question to this forum: is there a legitimate “mirror image” Logical Fallacy to the widely accepted ‘ad hominem’ logical fallacy which (similarly) fails to examine the veracity of the issuer’s assertion and (in this case) focuses on the issuer’s acknowledged ‘superlative’ qualifications. Limits?