Ad hominem, Ad Schmominem

T Clark

I have trouble with so-called “logical fallacies.” A lot of them don’t make sense to me. I think they disallow what seem to me to be perfectly reasonable arguments. They are also often, usually? misused by people who don’t understand them. They whip them out like yellow cards as if they are the referee. As if it makes them seem like they know what they are talking about. If I had my way, they would be disallowed – you should be able to put your objections to an argument in clear language without a label to give them false credibility.

Of all the logical fallacies I hate, I hate the so-called “ad hominem” fallacy the most. It is misused and misunderstood here on the forum every day. Here’s what Wikipedia says.

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

Valid ad hominem arguments occur in informal logic, where the person making the argument relies on arguments from authority such as testimony, expertise, or on a selective presentation of information supporting the position they are advocating. In this case, counter-arguments may be made that the target is dishonest, lacks the claimed expertise, or has a conflict of interest. Another type of valid ad hominem argument generally only encountered in specialized philosophical usage refers to the dialectical strategy of using the target's own beliefs and arguments against them, while not agreeing with the validity of those beliefs and arguments.

First off – the term “ad hominem” refers to an argument. An insult is an insult, not an ad hominem attack. This is the most common misuse of the concept. “@Bitter Crank, you’re a midwestern hayseed,” is an insult, no matter how true it may be. It is not an ad hominem argument. That doesn’t mean that insults are appropriate in a philosophical discussion. I guess if I were to say “Bitter Crank, your argument is bullshit because you’re a midwestern hayseed who doesn’t understand anything,” that would be an ad hominem argument.

The second paragraph of the Wikipedia discussion deals with a question I’ve thought about a lot. It seems like calling someone’s credibility and qualifications into question is appropriate in some situations. Does that mean only when discussing matters of fact? I think it’s ok to say something like “You are not a trained or educated physicist and I don’t think you are qualified to say that Einstein is wrong about everything based on an article you read in ‘Discover’.” It probably isn’t ok to say “You are not a trained philosopher and, for that reason, your opinion on the influence of Plato on Kant is not credible.”

I could use some help clarifying when it is appropriate to call an argument “ad hominem” and when it is not. I have misused this phrase myself. On the other hand, as I noted, we can avoid the whole problem by saying something like “Your comment does not address the argument I made.”

baker

I have trouble with so-called “logical fallacies.” A lot of them don’t make sense to me. I think they disallow what seem to me to be perfectly reasonable arguments. They are also often, usually? misused by people who don’t understand them. They whip them out like yellow cards as if they are the referee. As if it makes them seem like they know what they are talking about. — T Clark

Some old textbooks (not in English) on the topic of "introduction to critical thinking and informal logic" had a nice introduction where the context of informal fallacies was explained -- when is it appropriate to call something a fallacy and when not. Unfortunately, while there are many resources for informal fallacies on the internet, I don't know of any that would have such an introduction like those old textbooks. I'll keep looking though, because it would often come handy.

But in general, unless someone writes out their argument in the form of a concise syllogism, the conversation should be counted as a discussion, a work in progress, a mutual effort, and while it is still just that, it would be overreaching to already call out fallacies.

baker

Here’s what Wikipedia says. — T Clark

I look at this Wiki page at least a few times a year, and I can say it has been changed a lot over time. Have you read the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Criticism_as_a_fallacy and the references for it?

SophistiCat

↪T Clark

There are a number of common rhetorical moves, some of which are generally held to be fallacious - hence named fallacies. Nothing is wrong with the general concept.

As for ad hominem specifically, I agree that it very rarely turns up as a genuine fallacy in a discussion, and most charges of ad hominem come from people who think it's a fancy Latin for an insult.

If you said that bartricks was not worth listening to on account of him being an obnoxious dimwit, you would not committing an ad hominem fallacy - on the contrary, you would be very reasonable. You would be committing the fallacy if you said that batricks' argument was refuted on account of him being an obnoxious dimwit, but who ever does that?

T Clark

I look at this Wiki page at least a few times a year, and I can say it has been changed a lot over time. Have you read the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Criticism_as_a_fallacy and the references for it? — baker

Yes, I did read it. Here it is.

Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue, as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.

The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning (discussing facts about the speaker or author relative to the value of his statements) is essential to understanding certain moral issues due to the connection between individual persons and morality (or moral claims), and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning (involving facts beyond dispute or clearly established) of philosophical naturalism.

I think this gets to the heart of the difficulties in the way we use the term - the ambiguity and uncertainty.

T Clark

If you said that bartricks was not worth listening to on account of him being an obnoxious dimwit, you would not committing an ad hominem fallacy - on the contrary, you would be very reasonable. You would be committing the fallacy if you said that batricks' argument was refuted on account of him being an obnoxious dimwit, but who ever does that? — SophistiCat

Um... Hmm...Well... No comment.

Apollodorus

But in general, unless someone writes out their argument in the form of a concise syllogism, the conversation should be counted as a discussion, a work in progress, a mutual effort, and while it is still just that, it would be overreaching to already call out fallacies. — baker

I think even if they did put their argument in the form of a strict syllogism, you are under no obligation to do the same with your own argument, except in the context of a formal debate.

Other than that, it's just a discussion, conversation or, simply, exchange of views which is what it tends to be in most cases anyway.

As a general principle, insults and ad hominems do not contribute to civilized dialogue and I think they should not be allowed on a forum.

T Clark

As a general principle, insults and ad hominems do not contribute to civilized dialogue and I think they should not be allowed on a forum. — Apollodorus

Which brings us back to my original concern - What should be considered an ad hominem argument and when, if ever, is it appropriate.

Echarmion

↪T Clark

I think the most common problem with the logical fallacies is that people interpret them as informal language and use them in informal debates. However, for most informal settings, especially discussions among laymen, reasoning that would be fallacious in a strictly deductive argument is entirely rational:

Correlation does imply causation if you use imply in the informal usage of "is a common indication of".
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence for many everyday applications
Someone's character is often a good heuristic for the quality and trustworthiness of their arguments.

With ad-hominem specifically, the most common rhethorical tactic to attack someone's argument by attacking their character is poisoning the well, which is not technically an ad-hominem attack, but has the same goal. If the well gets too poisoned, to stay in the metaphor, discussions tend to shut down or devolve into shouting matches, so in terms of having a healthy forum debate, I think that's one of the core things to watch out for.

But of course it is occaisonally appropriate to call attention to posters that have a history of dishonest argument. However, it should probably be done in PM form rather than on the open forum.

Apollodorus

↪T Clark

That is a matter of debate. But you could, for example, start with words and expressions that fall under the general category of "invective" or "insult" and that are instantly recognizable as such by most people.

Personally, I tend not to use or react to them because it would be a waste of time. One should be able to take a "philosophical" approach in these cases, but the fact remains that they tend to lower instead of raise the level and quality of the discussion or conversation.

Half of the time people may search for something online and come across discussions on a forum only to discover ad hominems and other off-putting stuff that shouldn't be there in the first place.

Cheshire

If I had my way, they would be disallowed – you should be able to put your objections to an argument in clear language without a label to give them false credibility. — T Clark

The same rationale is why they exist. If a person has a legitimate argument then they wouldn't need to use a logical fallacy to convey it. Instead of explaining why this particular slippery slope argument is BS it's easier to generalize. It's like the philosophical equivalent of protesting being labeled a liar when you are not telling the truth.

baker

↪T Clark

Some more resources:

In brief, if the characteristics of a person constitute a disconfirming instance of what that person claims, then an argumentum ad hominem is not a fallacious. If the person making a claim individually embodies a counterexample which disproves that person's own claim, then it is not a fallacy to point out this fact to that person. At the same time, many ad hominem arguments provide some evidence and in those cases cannot be considered completely irrelevant arguments.

https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

(See list of examples)

* * *

The major difficulty with labeling a piece of reasoning an Ad Hominem Fallacy is deciding whether the personal attack is relevant or irrelevant. For example, attacks on a person for their immoral sexual conduct are irrelevant to the quality of their mathematical reasoning, but they are relevant to arguments promoting the person for a leadership position in a church or mosque.

https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AdHominem

baker

Which brings us back to my original concern - What should be considered an ad hominem argument and when, if ever, is it appropriate. — T Clark

(See the linked resources above.)

Non-fallacious ad hominems can often be found and made when it comes to issues of morality, religion, and spirituality.

T Clark

↪Echarmion

This is a well thought out, clear, and useful discussion. Thanks.

T Clark

That is a matter of debate. But you could, for example, start with words and expressions that fall under the general category of "invective" or "insult" and that are instantly recognizable as such by most people. — Apollodorus

As you say, it's pretty clear to me when someone is just being insulting. It is less clear when it might be appropriate to raise questions about someone's personal characteristics in an argument.

T Clark

The same rationale is why they exist. If a person has a legitimate argument then they wouldn't need to use a logical fallacy to convey it. Instead of explaining why this particular slippery slope argument is BS it's easier to generalize. It's like the philosophical equivalent of protesting being labeled a liar when you are not telling the truth. — Cheshire

If you're saying people call things logical fallacies because their too lazy to be more specific about their objections, I agree with you.

T Clark

↪baker

We can go back and forth in deciding when a personal attack is an appropriate argument. It would just be easier if people were clearer and didn't use jargon like "ad hominem." Instead of saying "That's an ad hominem argument," say "My educational status is not relevant to the argument I am making." The idea of a logical fallacy makes it easy for people on both sides not to face the real problems with inappropriate arguments.

Valentinus

↪T Clark

I resemble the remark, being someone who uses that "jargon" on occasion.

The references to arguments based upon authority, as noted in the Wiki page, are germane because arguing upon the basis of authority is also considered a fallacy in many situations. It is not a matter of using a rhetorical device canceling the merit of what is said. Once a matter is deferred to other people and their credentials or lack of them, the argument is weaker than one made by not relying upon those references.

Moliere

Only an idiot would discount the continuous back and forth accusations of fallacious reasoning :D

T Clark

Once a matter is deferred to other people and their credentials or lack of them, the argument is weaker than one made by not relying upon those references. — Valentinus

Agreed, but there are times when credentials are relevant.

BC

First off – the term “ad hominem” refers to an argument. An insult is an insult, not an ad hominem attack. This is the most common misuse of the concept. “@Bitter Crank, you’re a midwestern hayseed,” is an insult, no matter how true it may be. It is not an ad hominem argument. That doesn’t mean that insults are appropriate in a philosophical discussion. I guess if I were to say “Bitter Crank, your argument is bullshit because you’re a midwestern hayseed who doesn’t understand anything,” that would be an ad hominem argument — T Clark

But Clark, all those statements are true! I WANT to be a smart East Coast urban sophisticate, but what with oat chaff in my hair, and bullshit between my ears, it's too difficult to pull it off. I've never been accused of being suave. I've never started a trend. Nothing I said went viral. I'm a non-influencer incarnate and incognito.

St. Thomas Aquinas was celebrating mass on the feast of St. Nicholas in 1273 and had a revelation. He said, " All that I have written appears to be as so much straw after the things that have been revealed to me". He stopped writing, leaving the Summa Theoogicae unfinished.

I have it much easier than St. Thomas. I didn't have to write the Summa Theoogicae, only to discover that I had been turning out theological pulp fiction. I've been consistently turning out silage ever since I learned how to write. There will be no inconvenient revelations.

T Clark

But Clark, all those statements are true! I WANT to be a smart East Coast urban sophisticate, but what with oat chaff in my hair, and bullshit between my ears, it's too difficult to pull it off. I've never been accused of being suave. I've never started a trend. Nothing I said went viral. I'm a non-influencer incarnate and incognito. — Bitter Crank

A new logical fallacy - the midwestern self-deprecatory self-ad hominem.

TheMadFool

A lot of them don’t make sense to me. — T Clark

The Taoist in you speaks. I'm all ears.

Fortunately or not, you haven't said anything we don't know already. What looked promising turned out to be a major disappointment.

The ad hominem fallacy is premised on a simple truth: bad people can make good arguments and before I forget, good people can make good arguments. Conversely, bad people will sometimes argue badly but the thing is even good people are susceptible to the same malady.

Put simply, no correlation exists between the character of a person (good/bad/both/neither) and the quality of the argument fae makes. Thus, to attack someone (I think you used the word "insult") in an argument is to completely miss the point - you're fallaciously insinuating that character bears on the how good an argument is but that's false.

A true Taoist who really isn't a Taoist would recognize that there should be exceptions to this rule of thumb and there are. You see it in movies with a legal plot. The lawyer attempts to discredit a testimony by casting doubt on the character (liar, druggie, mobster, felon, basically biased, etc.) of the witness. A lawyer isn't guilty of an ad hominem in this case because character is germane, so they say, to the truth of a testimony.

That's all for now, folks!

TheMadFool

But Clark, all those statements are true! I WANT to be a smart East Coast urban sophisticate, but what with oat chaff in my hair, and bullshit between my ears — Bitter Crank

:lol:

it's too difficult to pull it off — Bitter Crank

:lol: × 2

St. Thomas Aquinas was celebrating mass on the feast of St. Nicholas in 1273 and had a revelation. He said, " All that I have written appears to be as so much straw after the things that have been revealed to me". He stopped writing, leaving the Summa Theoogicae unfinished.

:clap: My neural network has been rearranged!

Te Shan burnt all this commentaries and books on Zen within hours of his awakening to the truth. Why? Zen master Munan gave Shoju his sacred book on Zen that had been passed down through seven generations of masters. Shoju threw it into burning coals.

Why?
— Angelfire.com

WHY? WHY? WHY?....ad :vomit:

T Clark

Thus, to attack someone (I think you used the word "insult") in an argument is to completely miss the point - you're fallaciously insinuating that character bears on the how good an argument is but that's false. — TheMadFool

The term "ad hominem" applies to arguments. An insult is not an argument and is not an ad hominem attack.

TheMadFool

The term "ad hominem" applies to arguments. An insult is not an argument and is not an ad hominem attack. — T Clark

Well, that's not what I said. Insults constitute ad hominems i.e. dishing out insults when an argument is underway is ad hominem. That's what I think anyway.

The form of an ad hominem looks like this:

A makes an argument T to B.
B launches an attack A's character and (erroneously) concludes argument T is no good.

Attack on A's character can be done and is done with insults.

baker

We can go back and forth in deciding when a personal attack is an appropriate argument. It would just be easier if people were clearer and didn't use jargon like "ad hominem." Instead of saying "That's an ad hominem argument," say "My educational status is not relevant to the argument I am making." The idea of a logical fallacy makes it easy for people on both sides not to face the real problems with inappropriate arguments. — T Clark

Well, this is just a philosophy discussion forum, not the Holy Inquisition. So, no pressure.

Valentinus

Agreed, but there are times when credentials are relevant. — T Clark

There are such times. By saying that using such references are not cancellations of an argument, it is meant that deferring to others can become necessary when the matter involves ideas or theories beyond one's personal competence.

But framing an argument as invalid because someone is less competent than oneself can only be gratuitous to any point established to support the view.

Harry Hindu

First off – the term “ad hominem” refers to an argument. An insult is an insult, not an ad hominem attack. — T Clark

The ad hominem is using the insult as a reason to not accept the argument being made as a valid argument. So why cast an insult as a response to an argument being made if it's not an attempt to invalidate the argument that they made?

You're confusing simply casting insults at people with casting insults at people as a response to an argument that they made. As such, insults of any kind simply don't belong on a philosophy forum.

T Clark

Insults constitute ad hominems i.e. dishing out insults when an argument is underway is ad hominem. — TheMadFool

The term "ad hominem" refers to arguments. An insult is not an argument.

T Clark

Well, this is just a philosophy discussion forum, not the Holy Inquisition. — baker

As you well know, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Ad hominem, Ad Schmominem

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions