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.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
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
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
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
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
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.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
(See the linked resources above.)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
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
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
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
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
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.
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 lot of them don’t make sense to me. — 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 — Bitter Crank
it's too difficult to pull it off — Bitter Crank
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.
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
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. — T Clark
Well, this is just a philosophy discussion forum, not the Holy Inquisition. So, no pressure.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
Agreed, but there are times when credentials are relevant. — 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?First off – the term “ad hominem” refers to an argument. An insult is an insult, not an ad hominem attack. — T Clark
Insults constitute ad hominems i.e. dishing out insults when an argument is underway is ad hominem. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.