| 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 | |
|
An ad hominem an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument. A '' Reductio Ad Hitlerum '' argument can be seen as a special case of an ''ad hominem'' argument, since these arguments are attacking something supposedly said or supported by Adolf Hitler , who is usually considered to have been an evil person. Other common subtypes of the ''ad hominem'' include the ''ad hominem circumstantial'', or ''ad hominem circumstantiae'', an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ''ad hominem tu quoque'', which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as being guilty of the same thing that he is arguing against. Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in . On the other hand, the theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of Witnesses , including Eyewitness evidence and Expert Witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence. Argument ad hominem is the converse of Appeal To Authority , in which the arguer bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. Hence, while an ad hominem argument may make an assertion less compelling, by showing that the person making the assertion does not have the authority, knowledge or position they claim, or has made mistaken assertions on similar topics in the past, it cannot provide an infallible counterargument. ''AD HOMINEM'' AS FORMAL FALLACY A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form: :Person A makes claim X :There is something objectionable about Person A :Therefore claim X is false 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 because of the natural inclination of the human brain to recognize Patterns . In contrast, an argument that instead relies (fallaciously) on the ''positive'' aspects of the person arguing the case is known as Appeal To Authority . The first Premise is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The Contention is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. The fallacy does not represent a Valid form of reasoning because even if you accept both co-premises, that does not guarantee the truthfulness of the contention. This can also be thought of as the argument having an un-stated Co-premise . In this fleshed out example, the un-stated co-premise "''everything that A claims is false''" has been included, and the argument is therefore now a valid one. However in the ad hominem fallacy the Un-stated Co-premise is always false, thereby maintaining the fallacy. Note that this does not imply that the contention "''eugenics is a bad idea''" is false, merely un-supported by the pattern of reasoning below it. USAGE In logic An ''ad hominem'' fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all ''purely'' because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him 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 (though it is not usually regarded as acceptable). 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. However, this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are in agreement that this use is incorrect. Skeptic James Randi discusses how alleged psychic Sylvia Browne responds to his challenges of her abilities with the ad hominem fallacy. Example: :"You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well." This argument would generally be accepted as reasonable, as regards personal evidence, on the premise that criminals are likely to lie to protect each other. On the other hand, it is an invalid example of ad hominem if the person making the claim is doing so on the basis of evidence independent of their own credibility. Not all ''ad hominem'' fallacies are insulting: Example: :"Paula says the umpire made the correct call, but this can't be true, because Paula was doing more important things than watching 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. Colloquially In common language, any personal attack, regardless of whether it is part of an argument, is often referred to as ''ad hominem''. {Link without Title} 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 Insult ing or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensibly damning character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions. This tactic is frequently employed as a Propaganda tool among Politician s who are attempting to influence the voter base in their favor through an Appeal To Emotion rather than by logical means, especially when their own position is logically weaker than their opponent's. Examples:
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, ''ad hominem'' circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that pointing out that one's opponent is disposed to make a certain argument does not make the argument, from a logical point of view, any less credible; this overlaps with the Genetic Fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source). On the other hand, where the person taking a position seeks to convince us by a claim of authority, or personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero {Link without Title} This fallacy is essentially the same as Bulverism , a term coined by C. S. Lewis . 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 may be ''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 an ''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 an example of a valid circumstantial argument. Her point is that since a man in a prominent position, accused of an affair with a callgirl, would deny the claim whether it was true or false, his denial carries no evidentiary weight. (In the case in question, the denial was apparently false). 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 is not 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 behaving hypocritically, but this does not weaken the evidence he presents against the accused embezzlers. (This is true unless there is reason to believe that the evidence may have been fabricated, and to believe that hypocrites are more likely to present fabricated evidence). Guilt by Association Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument. This form of the argument is as follows: :A makes claim P. :Bs also make claim P. :Therefore, A is a B. Example: "You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but Communists also say this, therefore you are a communist" This fallacy can also take another form: :A makes claim P. :Bs make claims P and Q :Therefore, A makes claim Q. Examples: "You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but Communists also say this, and they believe in revolution. Thus, you believe in revolution." A similar tactic may be employed to encourage someone to renounce an opinion, or force them to choose between renouncing an opinion or admitting membership in a group. For example: "''You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable. You don't really mean that, do you? communists say the same thing. You're not a communist, are you''?" Guilt by association may be combined with Ad hominem abusive. For example: "''You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, and therefore you are a communist. Communists are unlikeable, and therefore everything they say is false, and therefore everything you say is false.''" 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
REFERENCES |
|
|