|
United States24612 Posts
Aside from a Philosophy 100 course, I never studied logical fallacies (and the course I took didn't focus much on them). One fallacy I learned purely from the internet (in communities such as this one) is Ad Hominem. Of course, I learned this many years ago, but only got to thinking about it again recently because it is mentioned in an article I was reading, in passing. I realized something about the way the term gets used is bothering me, and has been for a long time... note that this was not necessarily the case with the article I was reading... I'm not sure why it suddenly occurred to me to explore this, to be honest.
To be clear on definitions, a fallacy in general is "an argument that uses poor reasoning" as per wikipedia (which I think will suffice for my purposes). An ad hominem is not a formal fallacy because it does not "stem from a poor logical form." It is informal.
According to https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem:
Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.
Sam has neither proven nor dis-proven Sally's argument with his response to the audience. I question whether or not his response is inherently fallacious, though. As awful as it is to say we shouldn't accept the argument of an unmarried woman, or one who smells weird, it doesn't seem to me like the comments are an effort to say that her case for equitable taxation is necessarily wrong. If smelly women really are bad at making logical cases for things (doubtful), then it is logical to focus attention on arguments made by other parties, instead. I'll try to create my own, more extreme example to illustrate this point I'm going for.
Example: Orcdude the orc is captured by human forces and brought before the king. While Orcdude, a well-known orc loyal to his war chief, is waiting for the king to finish a conversation with his military advisers, he overhears a plan being discussed to assault the main orc encampment from the East, near the dark portal. Orcdude jumps up and yells to the king that this is ill advised: the orc hordes are being equipped with new magical armor which is passively empowered by the energy emanating from the dark portal, making equipped warriors in the vicinity nearly invincible on the battlefield. It would be much wiser for the humans to attack the main orc encampment from the West, further from the dark portal. The king responds "I won't do that; you are an orc loyal to the war chief, and also smell bad. I certainly won't heed your advice, no matter how compelling you claim your logic is."
The king dismissed Orcdude's argument because of who he was, rather than using any logic. Is this an ad hominem? It is most likely possible for the king to consult with his magicians to determine how viable Orcdude's story is, and possibly find evidence, rather than circumstance, which proves the orc is (most likely intentionally) wrong, or possibly even right. It would certainly be fallacious for the king to claim he has disproven Orcdude's argument, but that's not what he did. Similarly, in the first example and many other cases of the term 'ad hominem' being thrown around, a person is not necessarily claiming they are disproving an argument when they dismiss it. The circumstances sometimes warrant it. How is it fallacious to do the right thing?
I know TL has some logic/philosophy fans who have probably studied this topic extensively and can, based on my thinking, come up with an explanation for how the term ad hominem should and shouldn't be used. It seems to me like people often dismiss arguments based on characteristics of the arguer when it is inappropriate to do so (like claiming smelly women are wrong) but that would make them wrong without being fallaciously wrong, from what I see, since there are also cases where it is necessary or reasonable to dismiss arguments such as those made by a randomized magic 8 ball with complex suggestions that may or may not be correct; it would be foolish to try to apply them to a specific situation as though the 8 ball has some knowledge of which suggestions would or wouldn't apply.
 
|
ad hominem is not really a logical category, it is a rhetorical one. There are times when it is perfectly appropriate to mount an ad homimen attack (e.g. "rush limbaugh is an idiot, so who cares what he thinks') and times when it is not. Mostly it depends on your audience and what you hope to accomplish.
it also depends on what you are arguing about. if you are arguing about something that is objective, an argument ad hominem is fallacious. if you are arguing about something that is inextricably subjective, it may be appropriate. Many people (especially on TL and in internet culture more generally) make the mistake of trying to argue about something subjective as though it were objective, and so they throw around "ad hominem" because they think it makes them sound very educated and logical.
|
You seem to be on the right track. For instance, the whole idea of appointing impartial judges is a sort of ad hominem - your judgement is not trustworthy because you are the victim's father. Asking for credentials and references when hiring is a sort of ad hominem - having no experience with computers whatsoever, you probably won't do as our lead programmer. Having an opinion about people - their trustworthiness, abilities and so on and so forth - is the only sensible alternative.
If ad hominem is to be a fallacy, it is only for those cases where character judgements are superfluous - when there are other, sounder standards to judge their arguments or claims by. If two students have both presented their calculations of an integral and have different answers, then Well, girls obviously can't do maths seems like an ad hominem; a placeholder for pointing out why her way of doing it is wrong.
The problem here is that there is no clear cut difference between where there's a fallacy and where there's sound judgement. When a tenured professor points out that the quantum healing charlatan has zero formal education and failed maths in high school and that all the resonance frequencies he's talking about is utter bogus - call it whatever you want, but he does have a point.
|
good posts and yes, I absolutely hate how ad hominem is thrown around in internet arguments often disregarding context. Very few logical fallacies actually apply in real arguments.
|
United States15275 Posts
Ad hominems are not necessarily fallacious in nature. The usage of them is somewhat justified in cases where both parties do not share access to the same information. One can use the other's character as a barometer to approximate their veracity of the other person's argument.
The example with Sally is an ad hominem argument as Sam is using superfluous standards to dismiss the argument altogether. The fact that is not married, was arrested, and smells are not related to the context of the argument. They do not indicate that she has a personal stake in the argument and may have twisted logic to conform to her biases. They do not indicate that she lacks understanding of the subject. Back in the seventeenth century the ad hominem would have more weight as all those factors would be interpreted by an audience as evidence of being unreliable.
The Orcdude example is also an ad hominem except it is rooted in a reasonable conflict of interests. Orcdude is supposedly loyal to his war chief; he lacks any apparent motivation to make an argument that will hurt the people he is loyal to. All of a sudden he yells out an argument that involves information that the king is not privy to, one that is sensible but requires a leap of faith to two ways. The king must take his tale at face value and in doing so, believe that Orcdude is deliberately trying to help them. Of course the king rejects it based on the assumption that no orc would ever betray his people, which is a generalized assumption instead of being one based on previous knowledge of Orcdude's character. This is where I believe the illegitimacy of ad hominem arguments start to become fuzzy. We are starting to use character judgments as shortcuts which may or may not result in the same conclusions as a proper examination of the argument.
|
The term you're looking for is ad hominem circumstantial.
"Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).[9]
The circumstantial fallacy applies only where the source taking a position is only making a logical argument from premises that are generally accepted. Where the source seeks to convince an audience of the truth of a premise by a claim of authority or by personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.[10]"
|
My biggest pet peeve with people referring to fallacies is that they almost never explain exactly how the fallacy applies to the situation. How many times have you seen someone say that someone is strawmanning and then never make the connection? (It rather reminds me of The Argument Clinic.) It's usually an attempt to psychologise their way out of having to give an actual argument.
It seems that there could be some use for ad hominems, but it's almost always a poor decision when actually engaging with an argument. Its only real usefulness is as a filter, you could say, of content. When sam!zdat makes his ad hominem towards Rush Limbaugh, he is not really discussing any argument, he is simply predicting that the source will not posit any new or interesting ideas and so he will save himself the effort of rehashing tired discussions. While you may occasionally draw some interesting conclusions on the attitudes of proponents of certain arguments (like sam!zdat is clearly an ideologue because he can't write 5 lines without spewing some vitriol), I'd encourage anyone to assiduously avoid the temptation.
Ideas are interesting; people are not.
|
United States15275 Posts
On November 21 2013 12:09 Jerubaal wrote:
My biggest pet peeve with people referring to fallacies is that they almost never explain exactly how the fallacy applies to the situation. How many times have you seen someone say that someone is strawmanning and then never make the connection? (It rather reminds me of The Argument Clinic.) It's usually an attempt to psychologise their way out of having to give an actual argument.
It seems that there could be some use for ad hominems, but it's almost always a poor decision when actually engaging with an argument. Its only real usefulness is as a filter, you could say, of content. When sam!zdat makes his ad hominem towards Rush Limbaugh, he is not really discussing any argument, he is simply predicting that the source will not posit any new or interesting ideas and so he will save himself the effort of rehashing tired discussions. While you may occasionally draw some interesting conclusions on the attitudes of proponents of certain arguments (like sam!zdat is clearly an ideologue because he can't write 5 lines without spewing some vitriol), I'd encourage anyone to assiduously avoid the temptation.
Ideas are interesting; people are not.
People on the Internet use the phrase "you're arguing semantics" incorrectly all the time. It's really tiring to explain what the term actually means.
|
On November 21 2013 12:09 Jerubaal wrote:
Ideas are interesting; people are not.
Uh. I think some people are pretty interesting. But what is a person outside of oneself but an idea? HM.
|
On November 21 2013 12:09 Jerubaal wrote:
sam!zdat is clearly an ideologue because he can't write 5 lines without spewing some vitriol
the humoural critique of ideology :D
|
On November 21 2013 12:25 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2013 12:09 Jerubaal wrote:
sam!zdat is clearly an ideologue because he can't write 5 lines without spewing some vitriol
the humoural critique of ideology :D
Your ideology is the incorrect one.
|
How's this?
Claim: Since my family has 3 sons, all families must have 3 sons.
Ad hominem: That statement is wrong because you're nothing more than an idiot.
Valid counterargument: That statement is wrong because it's a non sequitur. You're an idiot.
|
On November 21 2013 12:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
How's this?
Claim: Since my family has 3 sons, all families must have 3 sons.
Ad hominem: That statement is wrong because you're nothing more than an idiot.
Valid counterargument: That statement is wrong because it's a non sequitur. You're an idiot.
Thus railed Thersites, but Ulysses at once went up to him and rebuked him sternly. "Check your glib tongue, Thersites," said be, "and babble not a word further. Chide not with princes when you have none to back you. There is no viler creature come before Troy with the sons of Atreus. Drop this chatter about kings, and neither revile them nor keep harping about going home. We do not yet know how things are going to be, nor whether the Achaeans are to return with good success or evil. How dare you gibe at Agamemnon because the Danaans have awarded him so many prizes? I tell you, therefore—and it shall surely be—that if I again catch you talking such nonsense, I will either forfeit my own head and be no more called father of Telemachus, or I will take you, strip you stark naked, and whip you out of the assembly till you go blubbering back to the ships."
On this he beat him with his staff about the back and shoulders till he dropped and fell a-weeping. The golden sceptre raised a bloody weal on his back, so he sat down frightened and in pain, looking foolish as he wiped the tears from his eyes. The people were sorry for him, yet they laughed heartily, and one would turn to his neighbour saying, "Ulysses has done many a good thing ere now in fight and council, but he never did the Argives a better turn than when he stopped this fellow's mouth from prating further. He will give the kings no more of his insolence."
Thus said the people.
|
On November 21 2013 13:06 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2013 12:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
How's this?
Claim: Since my family has 3 sons, all families must have 3 sons.
Ad hominem: That statement is wrong because you're nothing more than an idiot.
Valid counterargument: That statement is wrong because it's a non sequitur. You're an idiot. Show nested quote +
Thus railed Thersites, but Ulysses at once went up to him and rebuked him sternly. "Check your glib tongue, Thersites," said be, "and babble not a word further. Chide not with princes when you have none to back you. There is no viler creature come before Troy with the sons of Atreus. Drop this chatter about kings, and neither revile them nor keep harping about going home. We do not yet know how things are going to be, nor whether the Achaeans are to return with good success or evil. How dare you gibe at Agamemnon because the Danaans have awarded him so many prizes? I tell you, therefore—and it shall surely be—that if I again catch you talking such nonsense, I will either forfeit my own head and be no more called father of Telemachus, or I will take you, strip you stark naked, and whip you out of the assembly till you go blubbering back to the ships."
On this he beat him with his staff about the back and shoulders till he dropped and fell a-weeping. The golden sceptre raised a bloody weal on his back, so he sat down frightened and in pain, looking foolish as he wiped the tears from his eyes. The people were sorry for him, yet they laughed heartily, and one would turn to his neighbour saying, "Ulysses has done many a good thing ere now in fight and council, but he never did the Argives a better turn than when he stopped this fellow's mouth from prating further. He will give the kings no more of his insolence."
Thus said the people.
That's probably the weirdest reply I've ever been greeted with... and this is TeamLiquid.
|
On November 21 2013 12:25 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2013 12:09 Jerubaal wrote:
sam!zdat is clearly an ideologue because he can't write 5 lines without spewing some vitriol
the humoural critique of ideology :D
Sorry, was that too ad hominem?
On November 21 2013 12:19 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2013 12:09 Jerubaal wrote:
Ideas are interesting; people are not.
Uh. I think some people are pretty interesting. But what is a person outside of oneself but an idea? HM.
I'd like to respond to this in two ways:
1. It isn't really the person that's interesting, though. It's the ideas they have or to which they subscribe and implement.
2. Your face is interesting.
|
This is really just an instance of a much more general problem with "logical fallacies" as typically conceived. As stated in the OP, there are two types of logical fallacy, formal and informal.
For the formal ones, you're better off just learning some formal logic so that you can easily spot every one of infinitely many instances of invalid arguments rather than memorizing a few random schemas. It's pretty damn rare that either of these will be useful on the internet though since no one uses formal deductions here.[1]
The informal ones are even more dumb though. They're a completely arbitrary list of pet peeves with little to say for them. If you want to know actual, common inference patterns that often lead people astray, read up on the heuristics and biases literature. If you want sound smart without having to think through the problems with someone's argument, read about logical fallacies.[2]
+ Show Spoiler +
[1] There's a worry here of inexperienced people learning about deductive logic then calling good non-deductive arguments fallacious, but that's a problem with memorizing the schemas too.
[2] Ok, some concepts that are occasionally grouped as informal fallacies can be worthwhile. Knowing about begging the question or strawmen can be good so long as you spell out exactly what the problem with the other person's argument is when applying them.
|
On November 21 2013 13:06 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +
Thus railed Thersites, but Ulysses at once went up to him and rebuked him sternly. "Check your glib tongue, Thersites," said be, "and babble not a word further. Chide not with princes when you have none to back you. There is no viler creature come before Troy with the sons of Atreus. Drop this chatter about kings, and neither revile them nor keep harping about going home. We do not yet know how things are going to be, nor whether the Achaeans are to return with good success or evil. How dare you gibe at Agamemnon because the Danaans have awarded him so many prizes? I tell you, therefore—and it shall surely be—that if I again catch you talking such nonsense, I will either forfeit my own head and be no more called father of Telemachus, or I will take you, strip you stark naked, and whip you out of the assembly till you go blubbering back to the ships."
On this he beat him with his staff about the back and shoulders till he dropped and fell a-weeping. The golden sceptre raised a bloody weal on his back, so he sat down frightened and in pain, looking foolish as he wiped the tears from his eyes. The people were sorry for him, yet they laughed heartily, and one would turn to his neighbour saying, "Ulysses has done many a good thing ere now in fight and council, but he never did the Argives a better turn than when he stopped this fellow's mouth from prating further. He will give the kings no more of his insolence."
Thus said the people.
Wow, Ulysses needs to chill out. I know Thersites talks a lot of shit, but that just seemed way too overboard, even if he was flaming Agamemnon. Just lock his account for 30 days.
|
|
|
On November 21 2013 12:09 Jerubaal wrote:
My biggest pet peeve with people referring to fallacies is that they almost never explain exactly how the fallacy applies to the situation. How many times have you seen someone say that someone is strawmanning and then never make the connection? (It rather reminds me of The Argument Clinic.) It's usually an attempt to psychologise their way out of having to give an actual argument.
It seems that there could be some use for ad hominems, but it's almost always a poor decision when actually engaging with an argument. Its only real usefulness is as a filter, you could say, of content. When sam!zdat makes his ad hominem towards Rush Limbaugh, he is not really discussing any argument, he is simply predicting that the source will not posit any new or interesting ideas and so he will save himself the effort of rehashing tired discussions. While you may occasionally draw some interesting conclusions on the attitudes of proponents of certain arguments (like sam!zdat is clearly an ideologue because he can't write 5 lines without spewing some vitriol), I'd encourage anyone to assiduously avoid the temptation.
Ideas are interesting; people are not.
Strawman happens to be one of the most used fallacies both online and in conversation. It's such a common tactic that has been around for probably as long as language. The best part is, usually the person using the strawman argument knows that they're wrong, and they're angry about it because they feel foolish. So they attempt to save face in front of the crowd by pulling out a false deus ex machina. They know that part of the crowd will not have been following the argument closely enough to determine when the strawman has been presented, and so, being the loud people that they sometimes can be, their loud and proud display of the strawman and instant personal recognition that they have won the argument is enough to win the more easily distracted part of the crowd to their side. Thus, they have fans to celebrate their victory with, instead of the difficulty of admitting they were wrong (and the honor that comes with it -- which is usually an alien concept for them).
|
On November 21 2013 11:17 sam!zdat wrote:
ad hominem is not really a logical category, it is a rhetorical one. There are times when it is perfectly appropriate to mount an ad homimen attack (e.g. "rush limbaugh is an idiot, so who cares what he thinks') and times when it is not. Mostly it depends on your audience and what you hope to accomplish.
it also depends on what you are arguing about. if you are arguing about something that is objective, an argument ad hominem is fallacious. if you are arguing about something that is inextricably subjective, it may be appropriate. Many people (especially on TL and in internet culture more generally) make the mistake of trying to argue about something subjective as though it were objective, and so they throw around "ad hominem" because they think it makes them sound very educated and logical.
I think people throw "ad hominem" around so much because many of the arguments on the internet are ad hominems. It's the simplest and easiest form of argument along with straw men, and I see them both everywhere.
It's also quite telling that you think "Rush Limbaugh is an idiot" is actually an appropriate argument. It would perhaps be more appropriate to make a statement such as "Rush Limbaugh has shown himself to be disingenuous in these situations" etc. But leaping straight to calling someone an idiot is never appropriate no matter how strong your conviction is. Excessive conviction is part of the problem with debates in general, and certain posters in particular.
On November 21 2013 12:10 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2013 12:09 Jerubaal wrote:
My biggest pet peeve with people referring to fallacies is that they almost never explain exactly how the fallacy applies to the situation. How many times have you seen someone say that someone is strawmanning and then never make the connection? (It rather reminds me of The Argument Clinic.) It's usually an attempt to psychologise their way out of having to give an actual argument.
It seems that there could be some use for ad hominems, but it's almost always a poor decision when actually engaging with an argument. Its only real usefulness is as a filter, you could say, of content. When sam!zdat makes his ad hominem towards Rush Limbaugh, he is not really discussing any argument, he is simply predicting that the source will not posit any new or interesting ideas and so he will save himself the effort of rehashing tired discussions. While you may occasionally draw some interesting conclusions on the attitudes of proponents of certain arguments (like sam!zdat is clearly an ideologue because he can't write 5 lines without spewing some vitriol), I'd encourage anyone to assiduously avoid the temptation.
Ideas are interesting; people are not.
People on the Internet use the phrase "you're arguing semantics" incorrectly all the time. It's really tiring to explain what the term actually means.
What people think terms mean and what they actually mean is at some point synonymous. Once a degree of consensus is reached the meaning has simply changed no matter how stubborn a vocal minority chooses to be.
|
the problem with your argument is that a lot of people are idiots
|
On November 21 2013 12:09 Jerubaal wrote:
My biggest pet peeve with people referring to fallacies is that they almost never explain exactly how the fallacy applies to the situation. How many times have you seen someone say that someone is strawmanning and then never make the connection? (It rather reminds me of The Argument Clinic.) It's usually an attempt to psychologise their way out of having to give an actual argument.
Mine is 'Correlation does not imply causation'. Some people seem to think that the appearance of correlation is an argument against the existence of a causal link.
A: Drinking and driving is irresponsible. You could get killed, or worse kill someone else.
B: That's silly, I drive better after a few beers, it makes me more alert.
A: Alcohol increases reaction speed and decreases attention and inhibitions. It's inherrently dangerous.
B: People are more careful because they know this. It more than makes up for any physiological change.
A: Just two cans of beer makes you 5 times more likely to get into a serious accident, even after controling for age and gender.[1]
B: Correlation does not imply causation.
I've seen this pattern so many times: One side suggests a causal link and a mechanism that explains it. They are challanged to provide proof for it. They give data that shows there is strong correlation. It's dismissed on the basis that correlation does not imply causation.
[1]I made this up.
|
Micro do you remember when I was talking about ad hominem in IRC a few weeks ago? Maybe that had something to do with it.
|
On November 21 2013 15:16 sam!zdat wrote:
the problem with your argument is that a lot of people are idiots
It's quite hilarious that you just said
On November 21 2013 11:17 sam!zdat wrote:
Many people (especially on TL and in internet culture more generally) make the mistake of trying to argue about something subjective as though it were objective
And then proceed to argue about something subjective as though it were objective.
Then again you could just be making a joke. I hope that's the case  Unfortunately most people are serious when they throw around these sort of arrogant assertions.
|
i'm being completely serious, and certainly not pretending to be objective. it's not possible to cope with reality, objectively
the point is, there are far too many idiots in the world to waste time engaging with the ideas of people who can be reasonably identified as such. It's unavoidable, and unavoidably subjective, and therefore a subjective (really, dialectical) strategy is the only way to attempt to approach reality.
|
On November 21 2013 15:33 sam!zdat wrote:
i'm being completely serious, and certainly not pretending to be objective. it's not possible to cope with reality, objectively
Well don't you see the problem with these sort of arguments? When someone take a subjective issue and treats it objectively, makes the assertion "this just is," it completely shuts down discussion. They are quite useless comments and tend to foster circle jerks.
the point is, there are far too many idiots in the world to waste time engaging with the ideas of people who can be reasonably identified as such. It's unavoidable, and unavoidably subjective, and therefore a subjective (really, dialectical) strategy is the only way to attempt to approach reality.
Ah, so your close-mindedness is all in the name of pragmatism. I see.
|
On November 21 2013 15:33 sam!zdat wrote:
i'm being completely serious, and certainly not pretending to be objective. it's not possible to cope with reality, objectively
You can argue about subjective stuff objectively. All you need is a small set of statements that both sides agree on.
That's what makes moral arguments work. I might not be able to convince someone that homophobia is objectively wrong, but I might be able to convince them that it's inconsistent with their own moral beliefs.
|
to be fair, I don't spend a LARGE amount of time talking about how rush limbaugh is an idiot.
|
On November 21 2013 15:43 sam!zdat wrote:
to be fair, I don't spend a LARGE amount of time talking about how rush limbaugh is an idiot.
Sure, but the point that needs to be made here is that even an "idiot" is capable of making a good argument. Which is kinda why you are supposed to, you know.... judge an argument on it's own merits and not resort to ad hominem.
|
but it's a computationally intractable problem to think that way about all the arguments in the world. by far. The only solution is to ignore idiots.
|
On November 21 2013 16:00 sam!zdat wrote:
but it's a computationally intractable problem to think that way about all the arguments in the world. by far. The only solution is to ignore idiots.
Speaking of fallacies, this one is called a "false dilemma." 
Also a good example of black-and-white thinking.
|
would you agree that there's two kinds of thinking in the world, black and white thinking, and thinking that is not black and white?
|
I think a better way of thinking about it is that there are many rungs of thinking: Everybody is influenced by their intellectual superiors. What differentiates them is their level of participation- are they aware of these influences? can they engage in the discussion? or are they merely parasitic?
The people on the lower rungs are going to participate imperfectly in the discussion. They are going to use poor reasoning and contain many inconsistencies in their thinking and generally be unable to advance the discussion. These people are not interesting interlocutors from an intellectual standpoint. Your efforts should be aimed at the top rungs, where all of the facile issues have been eliminated.
On a side note, I really think that a sort of ad hominem is a vexsome problem. Mostly I think that it's a symptom of modernity's almost institutionalized inability to engage with competing views, even competing currents within modernism. All ideologies are, to some extent, self-protecting, but too often the very narrow language of modernism leads it's adherents to say "[I can't understand your argument], your motivations must either be evil or stupid", and this just poisons public discourse.
|
hmm...this is a thought provoking topic. I want to try to provide some feedback in a simple way
Ad hominem's can be more logical and less logical.
1st form: You can call someone stupid based on their previous arguments, as based on your history with that person, you could make a probabilistic statement that any future arguments they make are ones that shouldn't be taken seriously. I also like Darkwhite's example of credentials; perhaps where someone isn't hired as a programmer because they have no formal training (even though they may be outstanding self-taught programmers).
I think that as a matter of practical necessity, these logical ad hominems are required in the world. You can't formally consider every statement of every person with equal seriousness; sometimes you need to save time by ignoring certain people off of this probabilistic metric.
2nd form: The less logical forms, like dismissing someone's argument based off of their appearance, are ones that people should strive to avoid generally and have no place in the world.
So in general, no forms are accepted when making rigorously logical arguments (as in academic journals and maybe some intellectual debates), the first form is accepted in an everyday sense (in order to live as a reasonable person and not waste inordinate amounts of time taking everyone seriously, when some people clearing don't deserve to be), and the second form shouldn't really be accepted anywhere except the local tavern.
Also as a side note, it is indeed quite silly when some people call others out on making an ad hominem remark, when they were just sharing their personal opinion and not trying to make a formal logical argument . I have noticed this as well on some boards besides Team Liquid, and its quite irritating!
Anyway, this was a nice topic. I think I clarified everything for myself, and hopefully I helped out in a small way!
|
On November 21 2013 17:47 radscorpion9 wrote:
Ad hominem's can be more logical and less logical.
1st form: You can call someone stupid based on their previous arguments, as based on your history with that person, you could make a probabilistic statement that any future arguments they make are ones that shouldn't be taken seriously. I also like Darkwhite's example of credentials; perhaps where someone isn't hired as a programmer because they have no formal training (even though they may be outstanding self-taught programmers).
I disagree with your definition of acceptable ad hominems because I really can't take the opinion of someone who uses an apostrophe for a plural serious.
|
One type of fallacy people on the internet do commit often but never get called out on is the counterfactual, which is roughly, assuming if p, then q; not p, then not q. Like ad hominems, there are counterfactual arguments that can be made legitimately given the right context, but too often people either incorrectly identify weak arguments of this sort or ignore completely.
|
United States15275 Posts
On November 21 2013 15:13 jacevedo wrote:
What people think terms mean and what they actually mean is at some point synonymous. Once a degree of consensus is reached the meaning has simply changed no matter how stubborn a vocal minority chooses to be.
I'm referring to people who don't realize that discussion of semantics is vital to proper discussion, especially when said people contradict their own arguments by how they choose to define phrases.
|
You really shouldn't take anything Rush Limbaugh says at face value. He's shown himself as inherently duplicitous (and is an idiot) so I would feel justified handwaving away any argument based on anything he said.
|
The problem with "as hominem" being thrown around inflationary often comes down to a conflation of several different ways to assess and evaluate authority. For example...
On the one hand, there's a tendency to conflate facts and personal competence. For instance, when I say "Smoing is unhealthy, so you shouldn't smoke," it is only sensible to challenge my moral competence - I'm a smoker myself, so my statement is hypocritical. However, that doesn't make me factually wrong: Smoking is unhealthy, no matter who claims that it is.
Then, there is a tendency to mistake cause and effect. If somebody says that "All muslims are terrorists," then that person is an idiot because the statement is idiotic; however, an 'ad hominem' reply paints the inverse picture and fallaciously claims that a statement is idiotic because the speaker is an idiot.
Third, often people scream 'ad hominem' when a counterargument is legitimately challenging their own abuse of authority. If somebody says that "According to Nobel prize winner Shockley, dumb afro-americans should be neutered," then the reply "Well, Shockley was a racist scumbag who didn't know what he was talking about," is perfectly fine because the original statement was itself fallaciously referencing authority (Shockley may have been knowledgable about transistors, but a Nobel prize in physics doesn't make him an expert in ethics/sociology/genetics...).
|
On November 21 2013 17:47 radscorpion9 wrote:
hmm...this is a thought provoking topic. I want to try to provide some feedback in a simple way
Ad hominem's can be more logical and less logical.
1st form: You can call someone stupid based on their previous arguments, as based on your history with that person, you could make a probabilistic statement that any future arguments they make are ones that shouldn't be taken seriously. I also like Darkwhite's example of credentials; perhaps where someone isn't hired as a programmer because they have no formal training (even though they may be outstanding self-taught programmers).
I think that as a matter of practical necessity, these logical ad hominems are required in the world. You can't formally consider every statement of every person with equal seriousness; sometimes you need to save time by ignoring certain people off of this probabilistic metric.
I disagree, saving time is irrelevant. If I know someone is stupid and unreasonable from experience, I'm not going to get into a discussion with them. That's saving time. Getting into the discussion and then use logical fallacies like Ad Hominem isn't saving time, it's wasting time. Just because someone is an idiot doesn't mean an attack on his character is an argument. Saying "you're stupid" might be stating a fact, but it's not an argument relevant to the discussion.
|
|
|
On November 22 2013 02:25 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2013 17:47 radscorpion9 wrote:
hmm...this is a thought provoking topic. I want to try to provide some feedback in a simple way
Ad hominem's can be more logical and less logical.
1st form: You can call someone stupid based on their previous arguments, as based on your history with that person, you could make a probabilistic statement that any future arguments they make are ones that shouldn't be taken seriously. I also like Darkwhite's example of credentials; perhaps where someone isn't hired as a programmer because they have no formal training (even though they may be outstanding self-taught programmers).
I think that as a matter of practical necessity, these logical ad hominems are required in the world. You can't formally consider every statement of every person with equal seriousness; sometimes you need to save time by ignoring certain people off of this probabilistic metric.
I disagree, saving time is irrelevant. If I know someone is stupid and unreasonable from experience, I'm not going to get into a discussion with them. That's saving time. Getting into the discussion and then use logical fallacies like Ad Hominem isn't saving time, it's wasting time. Just because someone is an idiot doesn't mean an attack on his character is an argument. Saying "you're stupid" might be stating a fact, but it's not an argument relevant to the discussion.
On November 22 2013 03:05 Barrin wrote:Basically, both Ad Hominems (personal attacks) and Ad Auctoritates (arguments from authority) are at best lazy and at worse a missed opportunity to learn and improve (for someone at least, making you kind of an ass). One who is genuinely interested in finding the truth (or the best known way of do something) will stick to the top 3 levels of that pyramid. If you ever encounter something you don't have the time to use the top 3 levels on, it's probably not that important so lest you risk being an ass (and/or worse, wrong) you might as well move along anyway.
Would you consider But he has been divorced three times! an ad hominem, when someone is a self-styled relationship expert? Maybe you're not even directly arguing with the person in question, maybe a friend or partner gives this expert as the source for his claim that, say, Sex must be reserved for special occasions.
|
Looked up ad hominem in dictionary of philosophy. It says there is a fallacious type and one that is proper. The former is attacking someones conclusion as unsound by using their personal characteristics as premises. The second type is taking a premise they hold true and showing a conclusion that logically follows but they won't accept. Example given is that a politician has friends profiting from shady deals that he denounced as wicked. It is not fallacious to point out that his view are inconsistent, even if you don't agree to the premise that deals of those type are wicked.
|
On November 21 2013 20:40 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2013 17:47 radscorpion9 wrote:
Ad hominem's can be more logical and less logical.
1st form: You can call someone stupid based on their previous arguments, as based on your history with that person, you could make a probabilistic statement that any future arguments they make are ones that shouldn't be taken seriously. I also like Darkwhite's example of credentials; perhaps where someone isn't hired as a programmer because they have no formal training (even though they may be outstanding self-taught programmers).
I disagree with your definition of acceptable ad hominems because I really can't take the opinion of someone who uses an apostrophe for a plural serious.
You're an easy person to get along with.
|
Ad hominem is something one could use casually, like in circumstances where appeal to authority is still useful, but in real debate where discourse is held to a high standard and the results of the discourse are important (i.e. scientific debates), ad hominem is a lousy excuse for a real argument.
|
Before I start, I just wanna state for the record that I think when people start quoting informal fallacies, it pretty much always means the argument has degenerated down to a battle waged by level 999 Latin vocabularies, with people busting out the big guns like ergo and tu quoque. I really fucking hate that. Most informals don't really need to be delved into. They're bad arguments because they are irrelevant. And some informals aren't really indicative of a logical fallacy. They might just be red flags. Slippery slope is an example of this, which basically says that it's a fallacy to give an argument using a convoluted or long chain of cause-effect assertions, which isn't fair, because the logic could still be sound. IMO you should only be able to call something a fallacy (formal OR informal) if it is indicative that the conclusion does NOT follow from the premises. Which means every informal fallacy should be derivable from a formal one. "Should" being the operant word. It's unfortunate, but that's just not the way things are. All that said, I think ad hominem is actually very well behaved.
So this is how I would define it: An ad hominem attack is an argument that attempts to undermine the soundness of another argument by (negatively) commenting on the argument's presenter and not the argument itself.
So I would include in the definition that it is based on no relevant premises. In a case where it is possible to comment on the argument's presenter in a way that is pertinent to the argument being retorted, I would not flag that as ad hominem, because it is discussing the argument itself. And that is ultimately all that matters. What would such an argument look like?
Imhotep: I am smart and pretty. Pretty people deserve to sit up front. Therfore I deserve to sit up front.
Gerard: Nothing personal, but you are ugly, therefore your premise does not hold and your argument is invalid.
Gerard isn't really using ad hominem here, he is just bringing up a fact that is negatively relevant to Imhotep's argument, and just happens to be about Imhotep.
So to clarify "ad hominem" applies ONLY to arguments that are retorts, that is, any argument that claims another argument is not sound.
Let's go down a list of examples.
Rush Limbaugh is an idiot. -- not ad hominem
This is not an argument, so obviously we can't call it ad hominem. Easy enough?
Rush Limbaugh is an idiot, therefore he smells. -- not ad hominem
This qualifies as an argument but it does not retort anything Rush is saying.
Rush Limbaugh is an idiot, therefore when he talks about [gay marriage], he's wrong. -- bonafide ad hominem
This is a retort to any argument Rush makes about gay marriage. It doesn't matter what he says; he's wrong. In a strict logical context this would be completely unacceptable. The only way to give logical proof for this statement would be to create a formally sound argument that captures everything Rush has said about gay marriage, and conclusively shows that he was wrong. Who has time for that?
I'm gonna throw a curve ball now.
Rush Limbaugh is an idiot, so you shouldn't listen to him.
This is an argument, but it's left a little bit open to interpretation. Don't listen to him because his arguments are usually wrong? Don't listen to him because it's a waste of time? The logic isn't exactly laid out bare, and as far as we know, the speaker isn't thinking about the logic. He may just be making a natural jump in reasoning by associating idiots with people that aren't worth listening to.
People do this thing called heuristics, where we make judgement calls that may be somewhat error prone but are nonetheless fast. We all use them all the time. I'm walking down the street and some numbskull starts yelling at me about how I'm gonna go to hell. I could take the time and reason out WHY I should refrain from listening to this guy, or I could just say he's an idiot, and listening would be a waste of time. A group of people who look like thugs are walking toward you at night. You could try to reason about what the probability is that they will try to hurt you, or you could just avoid them right now, before there is even a chance of confrontation. Maybe it turns out the bible thumper would have paused his diatribe to tell you your shoe was untied. Maybe the people you thought looked like thugs from far away are normally dressed, and now they think you're a wierdo for dodging them so obviously. The idea is that with good heuristics, most of the time they are right, and they are rarely wrong. So I guess my point is just because ad hominem arguments are not admissable in a strict logical sense, they can still be used in a heuristic way.
That was longer than I'd hoped. I like when people bring these kinds of things up. It gives me an excuse to record my thoughts. Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
