| Ad Hominem |
Article Index for Ad |
Articles about Ad Hominem |
Information AboutAd Hominem |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT AD HOMINEM | |
| genetic fallacies | |
| logical fallacies | |
| latin logical phrases | |
| latin philosophical phrases | |
|
''AD HOMINEM'' AS LOGICAL FALLACY A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form: #''A'' makes claim ''X''. #There is something objectionable about ''A''. #Therefore claim ''X'' is false. The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. Arguments that (fallaciously) rely on the positive aspects of the person for the truth of the conclusion are discussed under '' Appeal To Authority ''. Ad hominem is one of the best-known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory Logic and Critical Thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse (see also Argument From Fallacy ). As a technique of Rhetoric , it is powerful and used often, despite its lack of subtlety. USAGE An ''ad hominem'' fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or they are wrong to argue at all ''purely'' because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by them rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the person's argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority. Merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy. It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments. In the past, the term ''ad hominem'' was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. But this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are widely agreed that this use is incorrect. Examples: :"You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well." :"You feel that abortion should be illegal, but I disagree because you are uneducated and poor." :"Only right-wing nutjobs believe that homosexuals account for 1% to 2% of the population." Not all ''ad hominem'' attacks are insulting: Example: :"Paula says the umpire made the correct call, but this is false because Paula is too important to pay attention to the game." This is an ''ad hominem'' fallacy, even though it is saying something positive about the person, because it is addressing the person and not the topic in dispute. Ironically, accusing an opponent of ''ad hominem'' can itself be an example of ''ad hominem'' if it is worded as an insult: "I'm not going to stand here and let him insult me!" or "My opponent is resorting to logical fallacy to win." or "Since he is out of good argument, he's attacking me." (partial Argument From Silence ) Gender neutrality Since the Latin '' Homo '' refers to all humans, ''ad hominem'' is a Gender-neutral term (the male-specific term, if it existed, would be ''ad virum''). However, a misconception that the term ''ad hominem'' pertains specifically to the male sex has caused the Neologism ''ad feminam'' to be coined as the supposed female equivalent. The use of ''ad feminam'' in such contexts may be considered erroneous or redundant:
VALIDITY ''Ad hominem'' is fallacious when applied to deduction, and not the evidence (or premise) of an argument. Evidence may be doubted or rejected based on the source for reasons of Credibility , but to doubt or reject a Deduction based on the source is the ''ad hominem'' fallacy. Premises discrediting the person can exist in Valid arguments, when the person being criticized is the sole source for a piece of evidence used in one of his arguments. #''A'' committed perjury when he said ''Q''. #We should not accept testimony for which perjury was committed. #Therefore, ''A'' 's testimony for ''Q'' should be rejected. SUBTYPES Three traditionally identified varieties are ad hominem abusive or '''ad personam''', '''ad hominem circumstantial''', and '''ad hominem tu quoque'''. Ad hominem abusive or ad personam Ad hominem abusive (also called ''argumentum ad personam'') usually and most notoriously involves insulting one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but damning character flaws or actions. The reason that this is fallacious is that — usually, anyway — insults and even damaging facts simply do not undermine what logical support there might be for one's opponent's arguments or assertions; ''argumentum ad personam'' short-circuits these potential arguments from logic in favor of a direct attack on the opponent's authority. Example: :"You can't believe Jack when he says there is no God ''because'' he doesn't even have a job." Ad hominem circumstantial Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, circumstantial ad hominem constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way. Such arguments are not necessarily '' Irrational '', but are not correct in strict logic. This illustrates one of the differences between rationality and logic. Examples: :"Tobacco company representatives are wrong when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, ''because'' they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests." :"He's physically addicted to nicotine. Of course he defends smoking!” Of course, such statements could also be reworded to avoid the logical fallacy: :"Tobacco company representatives are ''biased'' when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, ''because'' of their own multi-million-dollar financial interests. Thus, such statements may be wishful thinking, or even outright lies, on their part." :"He's physically addicted to nicotine. Therefore his defense of smoking may be ''biased''.” In the following example Jennifer's comment is ''ad hominem circumstantial'' attack against Chris's statement: :Chris: "Women should be able to be topless everywhere men can be." :Jennifer: "You're just saying that because you want to see women's breasts." The Mandy Rice-Davies ploy, "Well, he would that , wouldn't he?" is a superb use of this fallacy. Ad hominem tu quoque See Also: tu quoque Ad hominem tu quoque refers to an irrelevant accusation of hypocrisy. Accusations of hypocrisy are inadmissible in legal and scientific debate, and can be distractions from the business of politics. That is, it isn't relevant to the credibility of a didactic argument whether its presenter has trod over the principle he espouses. For example, a corrupt lawyer who prosecutes embezzlers may be a sleaze, but in a properly organized legal system there can be no arguments ''against his defendant'' just because of that. You-too version This form of the argument is as follows: A A :Therefore, ''P'' is dismissed. This is an instance of the Two Wrongs Make A Right fallacy. Example: :"''He cannot accuse me of Libel when he has been convicted of libel himself''" Inconsistency version This form of the argument is as follows: :A makes claim P. :A has ''also'' made claims which are inconsistent with P. :Therefore, P is false (or is dismissed). If the conclusion is that "P is false", then this is a ''logical fallacy'' because the conclusion that P is false does not follow from the premises; even if A has made past claims which are inconsistent with P, it does not necessarily prove that P is either true or false. Example: "You say Airplane s are able to fly because of the laws of Physics , but this is false because twenty years ago you also said airplanes fly because of Magic ." "US Democrats say that we shouldn't participate in war in Iraq, but they supported it after 9/11." "US Republicans say that CIA intelligence is faulty, but they relied on it when we sent troops to Iraq." TAXONOMY The ''argumentum ad hominem'' is a Genetic Fallacy and Red Herring , and is often but not necessarily an Appeal To Emotion . Argumentum ad hominem includes Poisoning The Well . SEE ALSO EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|