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. — T Clark

I think it would do you good to read some books on critical thinking.

Here's a nice one:

https://books.google.si/books?id=0fVADwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=sl#v=onepage&q&f=false

I think it would do you good to read some books on critical thinking.

Here's a nice one: — baker

WOW!! You're really good at this.

Depends on the discussion, no?

If its ethics and morality, it seems ad homs are more prevalent.

Put simply, no correlation exists between the character of a person (good/bad/both/neither) and the quality of the argument fae makes. — TheMadFool

Aristotle, and a whole boatload of rhetoricians, differs. See Rhetoric.

a group of people sits at a restaurant discussing "determination and free will"...It's just a casual discussion about the concept. — Christoffer

a bullshitting mosh pit that leads nowhere. — Christoffer

Depending on the particular discussion, it is not uncommon for these to be good descriptions of what goes on here on the forum. It's an informal situation and rules can be looser.

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. — Christoffer

I don't think waving the logical fallacy yellow card is a very effective way to improve the quality of discussions. First off, people don't know what they mean. When they think they know what one means, they're often wrong. They use them in incorrect situations. Solution - describe the problem with the argument rather than just labelling it.

Philosopher 1 - You've never taken a philosophy course. That undermines your credibility. Why should I listen to your argument?

Philosopher 2 - My education is not relevant to the argument I have made. Please respond to what I've written.

Philosopher 1 - I don't know how to say this nicely, but you sound a bit ... naive.

Jeesus, some people here are just trying to help you, as per your OP request. Not to criticize you.

@T Clark

I am weedeating a steep bank. I slip and fall and, in attempting to catch myself, impale a sharp-ended woody stalk into my left wrist...

...in the ER I watch the doctor pull chips of wood out of my numbed wrist. When he grabs a certain piece and pulls with his forceps and it will not budge, becoming concerned I remark, “Are you sure you have got hold of a piece of wood??” He pauses, quits pulling out wood and orders an x-ray. The scan comes back negative, he sews me up and sends me home...

...next day a red glow begins spreading up my arm to my shoulder. I return to the ER, and a different doctor orders an ultrasound, which comes back positive for a foreign object. Surgery is done immediately, and an inch-long piece of wood is removed from my wrist. I spend three days and nights in hospital being pumped with intravenous antibiotics.

After I am released I do a little research on Google and discover that wood is invisible on an x-ray.


I seriously doubt my experience is unique, ie, being cared for by an incompetent or perhaps even malevolent “expert” with “credentials”. Indeed, I have heard too many other stories to believe or trust someone on mere credentials, when that means a diploma on a wall, or a position in a hospital or anywhere else.

“Credential” literally means “what generates trust”. The best credential in any field of expertise is not the formal, but rather the informal one: testimony by ppl who were helped. Someone with supposed knowledge that is specialized, not part of general knowledge, can argue to the ppl either honestly or dishonestly to whatever end, good or ill, he wishes; for he knows that they do not have experience of the narrow specialty he can claim to be expert in.

I don't think waving the logical fallacy yellow card is a very effective way to improve the quality of discussions. — T Clark

Neither is bad arguments and low-quality reasoning. I would say that if a forum thread leads to a "bullshitting mosh pit that leads nowhere", then pointing out fallacies and biases can absolutely be a way to straighten the discussion up and get it on track towards something instead of just being some random internet debate like on any other forum that isn't a forum dedicated to philosophical discussion.

The topics posted on this forum require a lot of education and knowledge, why would knowledge of fallacies and biases be any different?

The idea is not to have forum "laws" that fallacies and biases cannot exist, but instead try and encourage people to actually break down their own arguments in order to improve their quality. This should absolutely be encouraged on a philosophy forum and is pretty much done so by the forum guidelines, but there's rarely anything done about the bs arguments.

Having a clear focus on fallacies and biases as solutions to avoid "bullshitting mosh pits that leads nowhere", is in my opinion a positive thing for increasing the quality. I see no reason to fear them other than for those with a notion about their own ability to create a reasonable argument.

If someone points out a hole in logic, a specific fallacy, or a bias that seems to get in the way of a reasonable argument, then, like all other normal philosophical discussions, the person making those lacking arguments need to change it to make more sense or plug those logical holes.

It's just basic philosophical behavior in discussions and I think this forum encourages too little of such standard philosophical behavior in discussions.

“Credential” literally means “what generates trust”. The best credential in any field of expertise is not the formal, but rather the informal one: testimony by ppl who were helped. Someone with supposed knowledge that is specialized, not part of general knowledge, can argue to the ppl either honestly or dishonestly to whatever end, good or ill, he wishes; for he knows that they do not have experience of the narrow specialty he can claim to be expert in. — Leghorn

On the other hand, the woods are full of people who will give testimony that they have been helped by aromatherapy, crystals, homeopathy, faith healing, weight watchers, and on and on. The fact that we can't always trust credentials doesn't mean they don't have ay value.

My wife is a nurse. I can't imagine how anyone survives the health care system without a nurse in the family.

Yes, it is an ad hominem. The patient has no recourse except to call the person offering his opinion an idiot. He has not addressed the matter of importance and relevance, that being the suggestion to prick it like a boil, to rub bag balm on it, to make a baking soda paste and apply it as a poultice, and so on...

What would take this discussion '[from] the man' and keep it on matters of relevance would have been:

"Bag balm and the other suggestions seem to me drastic, an are not indicated in any medical advice I have received to date. Why do you suggest these remedies?"

"I dunno, I'm just a janitor, and an idiot.'

'Well, on that we can agree.' No ad hominem.

Jeesus, some people here are just trying to help you, as per your OP request. Not to criticize you. — baker

Seriously, I thought you were joking - criticizing my ideas about ad hominem arguments by making ad hominem arguments against me. It would have been a great joke.

Having a clear focus on fallacies and biases as solutions to avoid "bullshitting mosh pits that leads nowhere", is in my opinion a positive thing for increasing the quality. I see no reason to fear them other than for those with a notion about their own ability to create a reasonable argument. — Christoffer

I guess it comes down to that - I do not believe a focus on fallacies will improve the quality of discussions. If you think someone has their facts wrong or has provided inadequate justification, say so and explain why. If you think someone has made an incorrect inference or deduction, say so and explain why. Just shouting out "logical fallacy" doesn't convince anyone. Too many boys have cried "wolf" before. Everybody knows there's a good chance you're using the term incorrectly because so many others have. Just explain in regular language what your problem with the argument is.

An ad hominem argument is not necessarily unreasonable. It would be reasonable for me to question the knowledge of someone I didn't know who made a medical diagnosis for me.

Only insofar as deciding whether-or-not to accept the advice. But turning the discussion to the person's qualities, and making them the matter of concern over your need for a decision, makes it an ad hominem. A star is still a star, and a salve a salve, but there are varieties that make the distinctions important for decision-making. The credentials of the person stating them is irrelevant to the discussion when it comes to argumentation. That is why we seek out expertise in janitors when it comes to cleaning, not when it comes to healthcare matters. But what is important here about ad hominem statements is that the janitor need not be wrong...just unqualified.

Put simply, no correlation exists between the character of a person (good/bad/both/neither) and the quality of the argument fae makes.
— TheMadFool
Aristotle, and a whole boatload of rhetoricians, differs. See Rhetoric. — tim wood

You mean to say a bad person can't come up with a good argument? Do you mean to say bad people are bad precisely because they don't know what a good argument is and ergo, they'll tend to make bad arguments? Ad hominem thus ain't fallacious. @T Clark might find the answer interesting.

I do not believe a focus on fallacies will improve the quality of discussions. If you think someone has their facts wrong or has provided inadequate justification, say so and explain why. If you think someone has made an incorrect inference or deduction, say so and explain why. Just shouting out "logical fallacy" doesn't convince anyone. Too many boys have cried "wolf" before. Everybody knows there's a good chance you're using the term incorrectly because so many others have. Just explain in regular language what your problem with the argument is. — T Clark

But that's not what I'm saying. Ironically you are making me use this argument as an example of how it is used. You are essentially straw-manning my argument. I'm not saying that someone is just saying a fallacy and using that as a way to dismiss other's arguments, I'm saying, like right now, that pointing out fallacies and biases and then explaining why they are applicable is the way to use them.

Since a fallacy used by someone else, or a bias they show is not recognized by the speaker of that argument, hence why they fail the argument because of them, it doesn't work to just say which bias or fallacy they are guilty of. You have to explain why. Like here, when you take my argument and simplify it down to just using fallacies as something to drop in arguments, that is not what I'm talking about.

To ask for better arguments from someone who is constantly doing low-quality reasoning, and pointing out which flaws they have in their reasoning through pointing out their fallacies or biases, is absolutely reasonable when the aim is to conduct a discussion or debate through philosophical means.

The point is not to "win" an argument by pointing out fallacies and biases, it is to improve the quality of arguments so that there actually is a forward momentum of thought for both parties. Someone who ignores making better arguments is not someone I would consider philosophically able, but rather closer to evangelists, regardless of topic. Someone who just says or preaches their opinion and argues for that regardless of the quality of the counterarguments, regardless of how bad their own logic is, and regardless of how good the opponent's logic is.

An argument needs to be solid, it needs to have good thought out premises. We don't need to use the classic deduction/induction format, but it needs to have a logical throughline. But for argument's sake I can make one here.

p1. Fallacies and biases are flaws in reasoning that break the logic of someone's conclusion.
p2. Breaking the logic means the discussion is at a standstill until it has been solved.
p3. The quality of both side's arguments is improved when there's an active attempt to discuss without fallacies and biases.
p4. Pointing out fallacies and biases is helping the other side improve the quality of their argument.
p5. Pointing out fallacies and biases is helping the other side find the actual core of their argument.
p6. Pointing out fallacies and biases is not a valid argument in itself.

Conclusion: Avoiding fallacies and biases help to improve the quality of a discussion and pointing them out helps both sides moving forward towards a conclusion.

You mean to say a bad person can't come up with a good argument? — TheMadFool

No. I mean to say that Aristotle and a whole boatload of other people say it. I suspect that he and they had not-so-much experience with actors. I heard Reagan give a speech I thought was pretty good, even knowing he was not a good man. He fooled a lot of people - and to be sure he wasn't altogether bad. Three words from Aristotle. arete, phronesis, eunoia, character, judgment, good will. We're supposed to be able to judge the speaker on these, and thereby his argument and conclusions. These and all the other tools Aristotle (et al) provides.

Three words from Aristotle. arete, phronesis, eunoia, character, judgment, good will. We're supposed to be able to judge the speaker on these, and thereby his argument and conclusions. These and all the other tools Aristotle (et al) provides. — tim wood

That's what I said! :chin:

Put simply, no correlation exists between the character of a person (good/bad/both/neither) and the quality of the argument fae makes. — TheMadFool

That's what I said! :chin: — TheMadFool

Hmmmm.

Seriously, I thought you were joking - criticizing my ideas about ad hominem arguments by making ad hominem arguments against me. It would have been a great joke. — T Clark

I wasn't joking, I replied to your OP request. I thought about what resources could be useful for learning about the topic you raised, and I posted some links to them. Have you read them?

Only insofar as deciding whether-or-not to accept the advice. — gloaming

I agree. It is generally when action, such as medical treatment, is required that it becomes most important to determine the truth.

Hmmmm. — tim wood

Oops! :sweat:

You mean to say a bad person can't come up with a good argument? — TheMadFool

That probably isn't as much an issue with metaphysics, philosophy of science, philosophy of art, etc.; but when it comes to ethics, morality, and political philosophy, I'm not so sure.

That probably isn't as much an issue with metaphysics, philosophy of science, philosophy of art, etc.; but when it comes to ethics, morality, and political philosophy, I'm not so sure. — T Clark

Good point!

But that's not what I'm saying. Ironically you are making me use this argument as an example of how it is used. You are essentially straw-manning my argument. I'm not saying that someone is just saying a fallacy and using that as a way to dismiss other's arguments, I'm saying, like right now, that pointing out fallacies and biases and then explaining why they are applicable is the way to use them. — Christoffer

To make sure we're talking about the same thing, when you say I'm "straw-manning" your argument, you mean I'm attributing an argument to you that you never made. Correct? If so, it was on account of a misunderstanding, not an attempt to win the argument. I have no problem with explaining the problems with another person's argument. As I've said from the beginning, it is labelling an argument as a logical fallacy I object to. Doing that allows people to criticize another person's argument without thinking through the reasons. It also makes it easier for the other person to dismiss the criticism.

That just raised a question for me - is labelling a person's argument a logical fallacy an example of an argument from authority? I'm not sure.

it doesn't work to just say which bias or fallacy they are guilty of. You have to explain why. — Christoffer

Yes, this is my point. What fallacy is it when we agree on something but keep arguing anyway? Whatever you call it, it's one my wife and I get caught in all the time.

The point is not to "win" an argument by pointing out fallacies and biases, it is to improve the quality of arguments so that there actually is a forward momentum of thought for both parties. — Christoffer

Agreed.

An argument needs to be solid, it needs to have good thought out premises. We don't need to use the classic deduction/induction format, but it needs to have a logical throughline. But for argument's sake I can make one here. — Christoffer

Agreed.

Have you read them? — baker

No. I don't believe your ad hominem argument criticizing the contents of my posts was valid.

Let's quit this back and forth. I'll give you the last word.

So you refuse to learn?
*sigh*

To make sure we're talking about the same thing, when you say I'm "straw-manning" your argument, you mean I'm attributing an argument to you that you never made. Correct? If so, it was on account of a misunderstanding, not an attempt to win the argument. I have no problem with explaining the problems with another person's argument. As I've said from the beginning, it is labelling an argument as a logical fallacy I object to. Doing that allows people to criticize another person's argument without thinking through the reasons. It also makes it easier for the other person to dismiss the criticism. — T Clark

To criticize the logic in someone's argument, pointing out fallacies is still a valid way. What you are attributing my argument to being, is - (in terms of a strawman, making it a simplified version of my real argument and in so make it easier to counter, i.e making an argument I didn't make) - that you just point out fallacies and nothing more. I've never said that the one pointing out the flaws in logic of the other speaker shouldn't do the job themselves of explaining the lack of logic. But pointing out which fallacy is being made can make it crystal clear what the problem is, rather than trying to invent the wheel and explain the basics of something already publically defined.

That just raised a question for me - is labelling a person's argument a logical fallacy an example of an argument from authority? I'm not sure. — T Clark

No. The logical fallacies are logical flaws, it's like math. If I say that 2 + 2 is 4, do you think that's an appeal to authority?

Yes, this is my point. — T Clark

But still makes it easier for the one with flaws in logic to understand where the flaw was made and how.

Generally speaking, it's like if you say 2 + 2 is 5 and instead of me just showing you two stones and two other stones and ask what they make together, I go on a rant for ten minutes on how stones can be single things and if you can imagine two stones, like those on the ground, but in some abstract way combine them, then attribute numbers to them and then you will know that... Just show the stones and get to the point, it's wrong, it's 4.

The existence of fallacies and biases is there to make it easier to get rid of flaws in logic. I don't understand the reason to not use them in a discussion. If someone misuses them, it would be painfully obvious for that person. But it would be just like any other who has flaws in logic. You tell them their fallacy is wrong. But using them right is a shortcut through hours of unnecessary talk that can be settled in a short sentence.

The problem isn't pointing out fallacies or biases, the problem is people never learning to understand what they mean or how to check the logic in their own argument. The problem is that people can't write reasonable arguments, not that others point out fallacies in their flawed reasoning. It's like you are defending the incompetent speakers trying to point out that the competent ones "are the real problem". Don't get it.

You and I seem to agree on most of this. We're just batting around the details. I'm satisfied where things stand.

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

Sure, but that wasn't what I intended to say as I already explained. I explained that I meant to say that if you claim their arguments are vacuous because they, as people, are whatever, that is no different
than saying they are not worth listening to..

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 — SophistiCat

So, claiming that all someones arguments are vacuous of fallacious on account of what kind of person they are would be an ad hominem even if you don't bother to apply that "criteria" to any of their actual arguments.

The credibility and basis of knowledge of members is sometimes an issue. — T Clark

Sure, you might conclude that someone is an idiot on account of their constantly presenting invalid arguments and/ or baseless claims. That may or may not be a reasonable conclusion, but at least it would be based on examination of their arguments, and not on their religion or politics or facility with language.

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. — baker

If their arguments are vacuous then they would be invalid and or unsound no? I think the point about the ad hominem fallacy is that it consists in assuming that someone's arguments are invalid or unsound or vacuous without examining their actual arguments.