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. — Valentinus

That's the main question I'm trying to get at - when is it reasonable to raise questions about something personal about someone as an argument. If someone were to say "Einstein was wrong about the speed of light," I think it would be reasonable for me to ask how the person is qualified to make that statement.

The ad hominem is using the insult as a reason to not accept the argument being made as a valid argument. — Harry Hindu

An ad hominem argument does not have to be an insult. Here's one of my favorite ad hominem arguments. "But you're a cashier." Fairly long ( minute 30 seconds), so you might want to skip it.

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? — Harry Hindu

Sometimes (often), the insulting party expects that the insultee will infer the intended argument, based on the discussion thus far. People usually don't speak in concise syllogisms, but use other forms of discourse, often skipping some steps (under the assumption that the reader will be able to correctly infer them themselves). When a discussion begins to contain insults, this can be taken as a clue to infer what argument is actually being made prior to that, it tends to be possible to (re)construct it.

As you well know, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. — T Clark

But MP taught us to.

If someone were to say "Einstein was wrong about the speed of light," I think it would be reasonable for me to ask how the person is qualified to make that statement. — T Clark

I see no need to make it personal like that. If one is so inclined to have a conversation on the topic of Einstein being wrong about the speed of light, one can simply summon the claimant to elaborate, explain, and then take it from there.

If, however, one were to assume that a person's academic credentials or lack thereof is a reason to dismiss their claim at the onset, then one is venturing into the territory of the fallacious ad hominem.

If, however, one were to assume that a person's academic credentials or lack thereof is a reason to dismiss their claim at the onset, then one is venturing into the territory of the fallacious ad hominem. — baker

Dr. Baker: Mr. Clark, you have a bent framerjamet. I recommend you eat one dog turd a day till it resolves itself.

Mr. Clark: I'd like to see your med school diploma please.

The Einstein factor shows how one has to be as capable as he was to argue on his level. Using him as a reference may be valid as a point of reference but the argument is no longer about what one can present as one's own.

When arguing with someone who is less capable than oneself, nothing is to be gained by making much of it. It does not increase the strength of an argument to do so. Socrates is a good example to follow. He casted ridicule without reference to his interrogators' deficiencies. That is how it is done.

The fallacy of the artificial example. Some things just don't happen in the real world. Keep it real.

The fallacy of the artificial example. Some things just don't happen in the real world. Keep it real. — baker

Dr. Baker: Mr. Clark, you have an inflamed spleen. I recommend you take this medication once a day till it resolves itself.

Mr. Clark: I'd like to see your med school diploma please.

This discussion reminds me of the criticism directed at Rousseau: that he did not raise any of his several children, but instead had them all sent off to an orphanage, yet dared to write a book (Emile) about education.

I think a distinction must be made here between theoretical and practical thinking: if I want to know about education, I read Rousseau; if instead I want someone to raise my child, I hire a good and loving nanny.

When arguing with someone who is less capable than oneself, nothing is to be gained by making much of it. It does not increase the strength of an argument to do so. Socrates is a good example to follow. He casted ridicule without reference to his interrogators' deficiencies. That is how it is done. — Valentinus

I think a distinction must be made here between theoretical and practical thinking: if I want to know about education, I read Rousseau; if instead I want someone to raise my child, I hire a good and loving nanny. — Leghorn

My answer to the two of you is the same - I think there are times when personal or professional facts about a person are relevant to the legitimacy of their argument or opinion. The example often given is court proceedings. Typically, technical witnesses are not allowed to testify unless they can show they are appropriately qualified.

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

True, an adhominem is a (fallacious) argument. The surest, commonest, mayhaps the only, way to commit it is by resorting to insults.

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

What's the difference between saying that someone is not worth listening to, and saying that their arguments are vacuous, and thus refuted?

Dr. Baker: Mr. Clark, you have an inflamed spleen. I recommend you take this medication once a day till it resolves itself.

Mr. Clark: I'd like to see your med school diploma please. — T Clark

This is an inappropriate example. Of course a person's expertise is an important factor in any decision as to whether to listen to their purportedly expert advice. But the ad hominem fallacy is usually committed in contexts where there is no definable of certifiable expertise, or at least not the kind of expertise which guarantees or at least produces tendencies towards consensus of opinion. Philosophy is such an enterprise. An example of the ad hominem fallacy would be saying that if Heidegger was a Nazi, then he could not have said anything philosophically important or interesting.

That's the main question I'm trying to get at - when is it reasonable to raise questions about something personal about someone as an argument. If someone were to say "Einstein was wrong about the speed of light," I think it would be reasonable for me to ask how the person is qualified to make that statement. — T Clark

If you bite, then you must put aside questions about qualifications and assess the argument on its own merit. But you don't have to bite - you could decide that giving a serious consideration to the argument isn't worth your time. Refusing to play doesn't break the rules of the game, since there is no rule that you must play.

What's the difference between saying that someone is not worth listening to, and saying that their arguments are vacuous, and thus refuted? — Janus

Saying that an argument is vacuous characterizes an argument, not a person, so this wouldn't be ad hominem.

What's the difference between saying that someone is not worth listening to, and saying that their arguments are vacuous, and thus refuted? — Janus


Saying that an argument is vacuous characterizes an argument, not a person, so this wouldn't be ad hominem. — SophistiCat

It was badly expressed; and I omitted some detail. What I meant to say was that claiming that someone's arguments are vacuous because the person is an idiot, not sufficiently educated, right wing, an anti-semite, racist or whatever reason other than explaining what is wrong with their actual arguments, is no different than saying that someone is simply not worth listening to. Either way, that just is the ad hominem fallacy.

Since I'm often guilty of holding the yellow cards, it's usually not to "win" an argument. In a philosophical discussion, it's important that the arguments are made to the best ability of the speaker. They should try to make them bulletproof by examining them as they are writing them.

Fallacies just make the discussion low quality. We turn to philosophy in order to lift a discussion up to a higher standard. If a group of people sits at a restaurant discussing "determination and free will", that's not really a place to have a moderator, arguments said within a time frame, examinations of premisses etc. It's just a casual discussion about the concept.

However, if the discussion is a philosophical one, then it needs to have certain rules in order to actually move a subject forward. If it doesn't have this backbone, then it will just be a bullshitting mosh pit that leads nowhere.

Demanding philosophical scrutiny and pointing out fallacies is meant to increase the quality of the other speaker. If their argument is of low quality, pointing out fallacies means pointing out the flaws in the argument until the argument is without those flaws.

There's no point in putting together counter-arguments to an argument filled with fallacies as there's no logic to deconstruct before forming the new argument. The discussion is at a standstill.

Maybe it's better to actually learn the knowledge about fallacies and put some effort into making arguments that don't feature them? Doing the opposite would just degrade the quality of a philosophical debate. There's a reason for them to exist.

Schopenhauer being exactly the kind of miserable person who made his personality a philosophy. — StreetlightX

Oh nice, an object lesson. There are things beneath or beside refutation, and their dismissal does not constitute an ad hom, insofar as it doesn't function as part of an argument. It's not a conclusion drawn from an (invalid) inference, which is what an ad hom would be. A nice negative example for the OPs question.

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

Of course, you're joking right? Many folk use them interchangeably to where it really doesn't matter. Especially considering the informal nature of most philosophy sites.

In a cognitive science way, folk seem to believe most ad hominem somehow empowers their Being, and gives them a kind of strange ego boost, hence:

“The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame in continuing along that path."
— Philosophim

This is an inappropriate example. Of course a person's expertise is an important factor in any decision as to whether to listen to their purportedly expert advice. But the ad hominem fallacy is usually committed in contexts where there is no definable of certifiable expertise, or at least not the kind of expertise which guarantees or at least produces tendencies towards consensus of opinion. Philosophy is such an enterprise. An example of the ad hominem fallacy would be saying that if Heidegger was a Nazi, then he could not have said anything philosophically important or interesting. — Janus

I'm trying to check out the limits of what "ad hominem" means. The example I used is the type that is generally mentioned in discussions of the "fallacy" to show it is not always a fallacy. So it is not an inappropriate example.

On the other hand, you're right. The main thing I want is to understand what "ad hominem" means on the forum. There are questions of facts raised here. On the forum, because it's informal and not very rigorous, arguments don't generally stand by themselves. The credibility and basis of knowledge of members is sometimes an issue.

What I meant to say was that claiming that someone's arguments are vacuous because the person is an idiot, not sufficiently educated, right wing, an anti-semite, racist or whatever reason other than explaining what is wrong with their actual arguments, is no different than saying that someone is simply not worth listening to. Either way, that just is the ad hominem fallacy. — Janus

On the contrary, It's only a fallacy if your intention is to explain what is wrong with the argument. The way you phrased it here would be an ad hominem, because you are judging an argument on the basis of the character of the person who put it forward. If you decline to engage with the argument, then you cannot be committing a fallacy. You cannot break any rules if you aren't playing to begin with.

An ad hominem is a pollutant to civil discourse because it attempts to make the winning point on the basis of some attribute or supposed defect/deficiency of the person opposite, and not on the veridicality of the facts in question or of the subsequent conclusion's rationality. Had the argument or discussion been about the person, one could argue thusly, but if the argument is about a defined fact, series of facts, or a conclusion derived therefrom (i.e. an opinion), making reference to a characteristic of a quality of the person uttering it is irrelevant.

"The world is an oblate spheroid in shape."

"Are you a physicist, a geologist, a planetary scientist, an astronmer....any of those?"

"Nope. I'm a janitor, and barely passed Grade 10 decades ago."

"You're an idiot. You're uneducated, yet you have the effrontery to make claims about things you can't understand and for which you possess no formal credentials."

"All true. I'm dull, anti-intellectual, and I'm both old and ugly. Now, back to my assertion...."

If you bite, then you must put aside questions about qualifications and assess the argument on its own merit. But you don't have to bite - you could decide that giving a serious consideration to the argument isn't worth your time. Refusing to play doesn't break the rules of the game, since there is no rule that you must play. — SophistiCat

I don't think biting or quitting are my only choices, although I do avoid argument now that I would have jumped into a year or two ago.

As I've said, because the forum is informal and lots of stuff gets discussed here, many of the questions hinge on questions of fact. When that happens, a persons qualifications, experience, or education may be relevant. Example - people keep claiming that Einstein was wrong about the speed of light because the big bang happened 14 billion years ago but the universe is 45 light years across. I've read explanations of why this is, and I sort of understand them, but it still bothers me. If, in response to one of these claims, I say "I don't really understand all of this, but I don't think you do either, so, I'll stick with Einstein." That is an ad hominem argument which I think is appropriate.

@SophistiCat & @Janus What about this?

SophistiCat: I believe in the Golden Rule - do to others as you would have them do to you.

Janus: That's bullshit. You beat your kids, treat your employees like crap, and cheat your customers.

Is that a legitimate argument?

What about this?

"The growth on you leg is benign. Just rub some of this on it ."

"Are you a doctor?"

"Nope. I'm a janitor, and barely passed Grade 10 decades ago."

"You're an idiot. You're uneducated, yet you have the effrontery to make claims about things you can't understand and for which you possess no formal credentials."

"All true. I'm dull, anti-intellectual, and I'm both old and ugly. Now, back to my assertion...."

But the ad hominem fallacy is usually committed in contexts where there is no definable of certifiable expertise, or at least not the kind of expertise which guarantees or at least produces tendencies towards consensus of opinion. — Janus

In the above example with the doctor, the patient would commit an ad hominem fallacy (specifically, a fallacious argument from authority), if he concluded that any advice given by the doctor is good and should be followed, regardless of how absurd it may seem, on account that docotrs must be unquestioningly trusted and their advice followed.


Here's a real example:
A couple of years back in Slovenia, a case became public where a child was born with a rare foot deformity, and a doctor apparently advised the parents to amputate the foot. They were upset and turned to the media and the public for help. Gradually, it became known that there exist specialists for this type of deformity, just not in Slovenia and that health insurance doesn't cover the treatment. It's one of those rare medical conditions for which one has to seek treatment in a bigger country.

What we don't know is how the initial conversation between the parents and the doctor went. We don't know whether he said something like
"Amputation is the only option"
or
"In this country, with your medical insurance, amputation is the only option".

Given how callous and legalistic some doctors can be, the former is possible. In this case, if the parents went with the doctor's advice and had the child's foot amputated, they would be commiting a fallacious argument from authority (for concluding that a doctor's advice must be followed, regardless of how absurd it may seem). But if he said that, and they sought a second opinion and other help, they wouldn't commit such a fallacy.

If, however, the doctor qualified his statement, implying that treatment is available, just not in this country and with this medical insurance, that would change the whole situation.

What's the difference between saying that someone is not worth listening to, and saying that their arguments are vacuous, and thus refuted? — Janus

Do you mean invalid or unsound, or in fact vacuous?

If the latter, then your pair above means roughly the same.

Mr. Clark: I'd like to see your med school diploma please. — T Clark

It seems your issue is specifically with appeal to authority (implicitly on your part!), because this same theme keeps coming up in your posts.

As I've said, because the forum is informal and lots of stuff gets discussed here, many of the questions hinge on questions of fact. When that happens, a persons qualifications, experience, or education may be relevant. Example - people keep claiming that Einstein was wrong about the speed of light because the big bang happened 14 billion years ago but the universe is 45 light years across. I've read explanations of why this is, and I sort of understand them, but it still bothers me. If, in response to one of these claims, I say "I don't really understand all of this, but I don't think you do either, so, I'll stick with Einstein." That is an ad hominem argument which I think is appropriate. — T Clark

I don't know how to say this nicely, but you sound a bit ... naive. A bit like a kid in a candy store who can't decide what to choose.

That's the main question I'm trying to get at - when is it reasonable to raise questions about something personal about someone as an argument. — T Clark

It's rather that you don't raise enough questions about yourself and about why you're reading ro discussing something.
Part of thinking critically is determining your own intentions and your own reasons for reading something or engaging in discussion about it. But given what you say above, you seem like someone who has a chaotic, unsystematic approach to reading and discussing. No amount of other people proving their credentials, or you proving their lack of those can make up for your own lack of clarity about what you want to get out of a conversation.

It seems your issue is specifically with appeal to authority (implicitly on your part!), because this same theme keeps coming up in your posts. — baker

Yes. I think ad hominem arguments overlap with appeals to authority. My attitude is that an appeal to authority is appropriate sometimes.

I don't know how to say this nicely, but you sound a bit ... naive. A bit like a kid in a candy store who can't decide what to choose. — baker

I don't know what you mean. Hey, wait a minute!!! Isn't calling me "naive" an ad hominem argument!!! You did this on purpose didn't you?

It's rather that you don't raise enough questions about yourself and about why you're reading ro discussing something. — baker

I don't know what this means either.

Part of thinking critically is determining your own intentions and your own reasons for reading something or engaging in discussion about it. But given what you say above, you seem like someone who has a chaotic, unsystematic approach to reading and discussing. No amount of other people proving their credentials, or you proving their lack of those can make up for your own lack of clarity about what you want to get out of a conversation. — baker

I'm trying to figure out whether this is an ad hominem argument too. I think it is. Boy. This is fun.