Confusion about the Ad Hom fallacy
Ken Shackleton
first response to insult.
If someone is called an idiot, that may simply be an observation
rather than an argument.
If someone loses their temper and calls another an idiot, it is
usually not meant as an argument against their position [which would
be fallacious]. I believe that it is more typically an observation.
The idiot's argument might well fail for other [good] reasons, but an
idiot they may be in any event.
On reflection, perhap's an idiot's response to being labelled as such
shouldn't surprise me at all.
Ron O
That is their definition of ad hom. If it is true and especially if
it pertains to the argument at hand, but it is a bad reflection on the
"victim" it has to be an ad hom. These same "victims" can lie about
people like the clergy that signed the clergy letter, or claim that
all scientists are liars or fudge their data, and those aren't ad
homs. That is just the definition that the anti-evolution side works
under. If it untrue it isn't an ad hom, but if it is true it has to
be an ad hom, likely, because you must have meant it.
Ron Okimoto
John Wilkins
<f151c10b-4dd3-4906...@k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Ken Shackleton <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
First of all, insulting is not an act of argumentation (although it can
be part of an offered argument designed, as a rhetorical ploy, to
poison the well of your opponent), so it cannot be a fallacy.
Second, the use of ad hominem in argument can be legitimate if the
character of the disputant is directly relevant to the conclusion
reached (i.e., it is not and ad hominem *fallacy* to note that the
testimony comes from a well-known liar, although it is ad hominem).
Third, there are no non-subjective standards for insulting someone as
an idiot, so I would shy away from using it in any conversation.
el cid
The post you responded to did not single out creationists or
anti-evolutionists as those that misuse the accusation of
ad hominem, presumably as a shorthand for claiming the use
of an ad hominem fallacy.
Your implying that this is something more typical of "them"
is simply wrong and you might want to consider clarifying.
jillery
I recently got into a "discussion" with a creationist/IDer who echoed
the recent Discotut nonsense about H. sapiens 46 chromosomes didn't
prove evolution. When I pointed out that he was propagating a lie, he
accused me of an ad hominem attack, to which I responded that by his
definition his accusation of my ad hominem attack was also an ad
hominem attack. So he called me an idiot and stomped off.
Ernest Major
<3a4ef146-4191-4f07...@r19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> writes
You could try falsehood rather than lie; it would be harder for them to
dismiss it as an ad hominem.
--
alias Ernest Major
Mike Dworetsky
In a thread of long ago (Re: All answers to CS Lewis, 14/01/2006) I replied
to a complaint (quoted here) about my supposed use of an ad hominem thusly:
"> Ad hominem attacks on my qualifications will do your street cred no good
> Ad hominem:
> Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason:
> Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents'
> motives. Dictionary.com
> al
>
"I did not discuss your appearance, ancestry, politics, religion, or
anything
else "personal." I have made no ad hominem attacks on your credentials. It
is an established fact that you are ignorant of large areas of science that
would be relevant to your claims. So describing you as ignorant is factual,
not ad hominem.
"If you use an illogical argument, demonstrate lack of basic knowledge, or
obtusely ignore evidence that we present and go back to your original claims
as if that evidence does not exist, I think I am perfectly entitled to call
you obtuse and unqualified. These are valid statements rather than ad
hominems. It has nothing to do with formal qualifications and degrees.
"If I said your feet smell, and you need a bath, therefore we should ignore
you, that would be an ad hominem.
"But I didn't say that."
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
JTEM
Ken Shackleton <ken.shackle...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> If someone is called an idiot, that may simply be
> an observation rather than an argument.
The purists say that any resulting remark -- no matter
what -- taints the entire argument as ad hominem... even
if it is only one word in a many paragraph reply.
I'd say that that it's only ad hominem if this "observation"
is in the place of, used instead of or as the argument itself.
So, "You're ugly and Monday isn't spelled with an 'r'" isn't
ad hominem, while "you're ugly" is.
> The idiot's argument might well fail for other [good]
> reasons, but an idiot they may be in any event.
One way to tell an idiot from a non-idiot is their inability
to articulate an argument.
JTEM
jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I recently got into a "discussion" with a creationist/IDer
> who echoed the recent Discotut nonsense about H. sapiens
> 46 chromosomes didn't prove evolution.
Wow, and to think that had they used the word "Supports"
instead of "Proves" they would have been wrong!
> When I pointed out that he was propagating a lie,
Oh, boy...
Erwin Moller
Hi Ken,
> I find it strange that an accusation of ad hom fallacy is often the
> first response to insult.
>
> If someone is called an idiot, that may simply be an observation
> rather than an argument.
Agree.
But of course, being called an idiot isn't excactly nice.
When discussing something it is better to stay polite, even if you think
you have objective reasons to call somebody an idiot.
>
> If someone loses their temper and calls another an idiot, it is
> usually not meant as an argument against their position [which would
> be fallacious]. I believe that it is more typically an observation.
>
> The idiot's argument might well fail for other [good] reasons, but an
> idiot they may be in any event.
Agree. :-)
>
> On reflection, perhap's an idiot's response to being labelled as such
> shouldn't surprise me at all.
>
I am curious: Why did you write this?
Are you sometimes calling other people idiots and are you surprised that
your (objective?) opinion is taken as an insult?
Or is somebody calling you an idiot and claiming (s)he does so because
you are an idiot, according to that person?
Regards,
Erwin Moller
PS: A year ago or so, I was having a nice chat with a guy online. He
mentioned his brother that had some cognitive problems. When I referred
to him later and asked if his brother was an idiot, that guy went
balistics. I was insulting his brother, he claimed. But I was merely
using (old?) terminology from psychiatrics. No insult intended. :-(
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Kleuskes & Moos
Ok. i'll nitpick a bit, since i recently accused someone of an ad hom.
However, i accused him(i think) of an ad hominem attack, which is not
the same as an ad hominem fallacy. For it to be a fallacy, it needs
to pertain to some argument being made: "since you're an idiot, your
argument is false" would qualify, but "you're an ill-informed
troglodyte." would not.
It does, however, qualify as an ad hominem attack.
Friar Broccoli
wrote:
Statements about a *man's* qualifications, obtuseness, ignorance etc
are about the man and not about the topic of discussion, thus they are
ad hominem, even if they are also true and relevant to his ability to
reach/understand a reasonable conclusion, and thus not a fallacy.
>
> "If I said your feet smell, and you need a bath, therefore we should ignore
> you, that would be an ad hominem.
That would be an ad hominem fallacy.
I feel compelled to admit that in the above I couldn't figure out when
it was you who was speaking and when it was the other guy.
Ron O
I will clarify. The anti-evolution contingent is most apt to misapply
the moniker. It is one of their frequent ploys to avoid facing
reality. They have to do such more often than the pro science side.
Good enough? No one is going to claim there are only angels on the
pro science side.
Ron Okimoto
Eric Root
> On Feb 2, 3:22 am, "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum...@pants.btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ken Shackleton wrote:
> > > I find it strange that an accusation of ad hom fallacy is often the
> > > first response to insult.
>
> > > If someone is called an idiot, that may simply be an observation
> > > rather than an argument.
>
> > > If someone loses their temper and calls another an idiot, it is
> > > usually not meant as an argument against their position [which would
> > > be fallacious]. I believe that it is more typically an observation.
>
> > > The idiot's argument might well fail for other [good] reasons, but an
> > > idiot they may be in any event.
>
> > > On reflection, perhap's an idiot's response to being labelled as such
> > > shouldn't surprise me at all.
>
> > In a thread of long ago (Re: All answers to CS Lewis, 14/01/2006) I replied
> > to a complaint (quoted here) about my supposed use of an ad hominem thusly:
>
> > "> Ad hominem attacks on my qualifications will do your street cred no good
>
> > > Ad hominem:
> > > Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason:
> > > Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents'
> > > al
>
> > "I did not discuss your appearance, ancestry, politics, religion, or
> > anything
> > is an established fact that you are ignorant of large areas of science that
> > not ad hominem.
>
> > "If you use an illogical argument, demonstrate lack of basic knowledge, or
> > obtusely ignore evidence that we present and go back to your original claims
> > as if that evidence does not exist, I think I am perfectly entitled to call
> > hominems. 锟絀t has nothing to do with formal qualifications and degrees.
>
> Statements about a *man's* qualifications, obtuseness, ignorance etc
> are about the man and not about the topic of discussion, thus they are
> ad hominem, even if they are also true and relevant to his ability to
> reach/understand a reasonable conclusion, and thus not a fallacy.
>
>
>
> > "If I said your feet smell, and you need a bath, therefore we should ignore
> > you, that would be an ad hominem.
>
> That would be an ad hominem fallacy.
>
> I feel compelled to admit that in the above I couldn't figure out when
> it was you who was speaking and when it was the other guy.
>
>
>
> > "But I didn't say that."
He's an idiot, so his argument's wrong: ad hominem.
His argument's wrong, so he's an idiot: valuable personal feedback.
Eric Root
jillery
> One way to tell an idiot from a non-idiot is their inability
> to articulate an argument.
Oh the irony...
jillery
> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I recently got into a "discussion" with a creationist/IDer
> > who echoed the recent Discotut nonsense about H. sapiens
> > 46 chromosomes didn't prove evolution.
>
> Wow, and to think that had they used the word "Supports"
> instead of "Proves" they would have been wrong!
It would not have made difference to the issue or the outcome.
Mike Dworetsky
> On Feb 2, 3:22 am, "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum...@pants.btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>> Ken Shackleton wrote:
>>> I find it strange that an accusation of ad hom fallacy is often the
>>> first response to insult.
>>
>>> If someone is called an idiot, that may simply be an observation
>>> rather than an argument.
>>
>>> If someone loses their temper and calls another an idiot, it is
>>> usually not meant as an argument against their position [which would
>>> be fallacious]. I believe that it is more typically an observation.
>>
>>> The idiot's argument might well fail for other [good] reasons, but
>>> an idiot they may be in any event.
>>
>>> On reflection, perhap's an idiot's response to being labelled as
>>> such shouldn't surprise me at all.
>>
>> In a thread of long ago (Re: All answers to CS Lewis, 14/01/2006) I
>> replied to a complaint (quoted here) about my supposed use of an ad
>> hominem thusly:
>>
If you had difficulty working out what was what---
This was the complaint from a rather highly-strung fringe-type:
>> "> Ad hominem attacks on my qualifications will do your street cred
>> no good
>>
>>> Ad hominem:
>>> Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason:
>>> Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their
>>> opponents' motives. Dictionary.com
>>> al
My reply was this:
>>
>> "I did not discuss your appearance, ancestry, politics, religion, or
>> anything
>> else "personal." I have made no ad hominem attacks on your
>> credentials. It is an established fact that you are ignorant of
>> large areas of science that would be relevant to your claims. So
>> describing you as ignorant is factual, not ad hominem.
After evaluating his claims, I described him as ignorant of large areas of
science that he was commenting upon. He then complained about that being ad
hom.
>>
>> "If you use an illogical argument, demonstrate lack of basic
>> knowledge, or obtusely ignore evidence that we present and go back
>> to your original claims as if that evidence does not exist, I think
>> I am perfectly entitled to call you obtuse and unqualified. These
>> are valid statements rather than ad hominems. It has nothing to do
>> with formal qualifications and degrees.
>
He could have had a PhD for all I care, he would still have been obtuse and
lacking in genuine qualifications to discuss the claims he made.
OK, I suppose I could have said he was a great guy, would make a fine
drinking buddy, but
his arguments and evidence were still shite.
>
> Statements about a *man's* qualifications, obtuseness, ignorance etc
> are about the man and not about the topic of discussion, thus they are
> ad hominem, even if they are also true and relevant to his ability to
> reach/understand a reasonable conclusion, and thus not a fallacy.
>
There are important cases where qualifications are advanced (usually by
creationists) as evidence about a person's veracity and ability to pronounce
about science, etc. Kent Hovind's doctorate is a fine example, as are to a
lesser extent the claimed qualifications of the signatories to the
DiscoTute's list of dissenters from Darwin. So is pointing out that
Hovind's degree is phoney, from a diploma-mill, and his "thesis" would not
pass muster at any self-respecting university, an ad hominem or a truthful
discussion of his qualifications to make scientific claims?
>> "If I said your feet smell, and you need a bath, therefore we should
>> ignore you, that would be an ad hominem.
>
>
> That would be an ad hominem fallacy.
>
> I feel compelled to admit that in the above I couldn't figure out when
> it was you who was speaking and when it was the other guy.
If it made sense, then that was me. Sorry if the punctuation was confusing.
>>
>> "But I didn't say that."
No, but I was tempted.....
JTEM
jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wow, and to think that had they used the word "Supports"
> > instead of "Proves" they would have been wrong!
>
> It would not have made difference to the issue or
> the outcome.
So the fact that they were right, according to you, has
no bearing on the fact that they were wrong, according
to you.
You do know what a troll is, right?
JTEM
jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > One way to tell an idiot from a non-idiot is their inability
> > to articulate an argument.
> Oh the irony...
Yes. But the irony stems more from the thread subject,
given your ad hominem, than your inability to respond
intelligently to my statement.
jillery
You're very funny.
Will in New Haven
For an idiot.
--
Will in New Haven
el cid
Well yes and no.
The real thing that distinguishes an idiot is, when most others
fail to appreciate their articulation of an argument, they blame
it on those others.
Please note that this in independent of whether or not the
argument in question is valid or not. The 'most' is a partial
escape clause for the case where some minority of your audience
are in fact idiots. If most of you audience are idiots you need
to realize that your supplying them with a valid argument is
likely futile and so blaming them even more so. Any relevance
to discussion on talk.origins, real or imagined, is purely
coincidental.
Note I'm reverting somewhat to a hybrid of the greek meaning
of idiot to be one who is too wrapped up in their own 'reality'
to successfully take part in society.
JTEM
jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You're very funny.
Unfortunately I can't return the compliment, as
you have no redeeming qualities.
So, psycho breath, what was it about my initial
reply that so enraged you? Hit too close to home,
did it? Or, was it merely your disorder kicking
in?
el cid
It's an ad hominem fallacy to say that Mr. Smith's argument is wrong
because Mr. Smith is ignorant.
To say that Mr. Smith's invalid argument suggest he is ignorant
regarding
the topic at hand is different.
The key of course is that the focus must be on the argument and its
validity or lack of validity. It's all about the 'because'.
Ken Shackleton
<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
> Ken Shackleton schreef:
>
> Hi Ken,
>
> > I find it strange that an accusation of ad hom fallacy is often the
> > first response to insult.
>
> > If someone is called an idiot, that may simply be an observation
> > rather than an argument.
>
> Agree.
> But of course, being called an idiot isn't excactly nice.
> When discussing something it is better to stay polite, even if you think
> you have objective reasons to call somebody an idiot.
>
>
>
> > If someone loses their temper and calls another an idiot, it is
> > usually not meant as an argument against their position [which would
> > be fallacious]. I believe that it is more typically an observation.
>
> > The idiot's argument might well fail for other [good] reasons, but an
> > idiot they may be in any event.
>
> Agree. :-)
>
>
>
> > On reflection, perhap's an idiot's response to being labelled as such
> > shouldn't surprise me at all.
>
> I am curious: Why did you write this?
It's not that I enjoy the use of flaming responses, but I have fallen
victim to my emotions at times as have most people.
My understanding of the ad hom fallacy is when you use insult rather
than argument and then claim victory. I frequently see these threads
unfold where one party is making a legitimate error, and that error is
being pointed out properly at first....then the party in error refuses
to acknowledge the legitimate criticism, and then gets insulted for
their stupidity [or some such thing].
The defense to that [especially by creationists] is to claim ad hom
and use that as a defense for their initial position....which was
wrong on its face to begin with.
This is a common pattern in these threads, and it often strikes me as
odd....but I guess that I should expect such shenanigans in these
discussions.
>
> Are you sometimes calling other people idiots and are you surprised that
> your (objective?) opinion is taken as an insult?
No, what surprised me was how criticism is ignored or avoided and then
the insult received is then used as a claim that the criticism is
fallacious.
jillery
Well, yeah, there's that, too.
JTEM
el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's an ad hominem fallacy to say that Mr. Smith's
> argument is wrong because Mr. Smith is ignorant.
>
> To say that Mr. Smith's invalid argument suggest he
> is ignorant regarding the topic at hand is different.
You're wrong, of course. In fact, your second example
is the classic use of the fallacious argument, as you
present it here.
There no deconstruction of the opposing view... no
articulation of a counter argument... nothing more than
an insulting denouncement of an opponent.
> The key of course is that the focus must be on the
> argument and its validity or lack of validity.
No. The "Key" is whether -- as in your case -- the insult
*Is* the argument.
Ken Shackleton
That's an interesting point....I was conflating the attack with the
fallacy. Good point.
jillery
> On Feb 2, 8:11�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 2, 3:38 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > One way to tell an idiot from a non-idiot is their inability
> > > to articulate an argument.
>
> > Oh the irony...
>
> Well yes and no.
> The real thing that distinguishes an idiot is, when most others
> fail to appreciate their articulation of an argument, they blame
> it on those others.
What about the case where most others appreciate the idiot's failure
to articulate an argument? It seems to me they ought to get credit
for that as well.
> Please note that this in independent of whether or not the
> argument in question is valid or not. The 'most' is a partial
> escape clause for the case where some minority of your audience
> are in fact idiots. If most of you audience are idiots you need
> to realize that your supplying them with a valid argument is
> likely futile and so blaming them even more so. Any relevance
> to discussion on talk.origins, real or imagined, is purely
> coincidental.
Right.
> Note I'm reverting somewhat to a hybrid of the greek meaning
> of idiot to be one who is too wrapped up in their own 'reality'
> to successfully take part in society.
It makes me wonder why they bother to post here in the first place.
jillery
Other than your demonstrating a total lack of intelligence and wit, do
you have a purpose to your posts?
JTEM
jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Other than
So you have no idea what I said to Ken, much
less why it enraged you. Good. That's good.
Friar Broccoli
.
I was trying to make the distinction between:
1) an ad hominem
2) an ad hominem fallacy
An ad hominem can be truthful and relevant.
An ad hominem fallacy normally contains a premise (which may be true
and relevant) that is fallaciously connected to a conclusion (which
likewise may be true or false). It is a fallacy because fools/liars
can make valid arguments and geniuses/saints false ones.
Your statements appeared to imply that an ad hominem is inconsistent
with truth or logic. It is not, unless it is connected to an
irrelevant conclusion, at which point it becomes a fallacy.
>
> >> "If I said your feet smell, and you need a bath, therefore we should
> >> ignore you, that would be an ad hominem.
>
> > That would be an ad hominem fallacy.
>
> > I feel compelled to admit that in the above I couldn't figure out when
> > it was you who was speaking and when it was the other guy.
>
> If it made sense, then that was me. �Sorry if the punctuation was confusing.
>
>
>
> >> "But I didn't say that."
>
> No, but I was tempted.....
>
> --
> Mike Dworetsky
>
> (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
JTEM
jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It makes me wonder why they bother to post
> here in the first place.
Most people post here because it is easy, and, in
turn, (like you) they are idiots.
Look what you're doing right now -- what I'm replying
to. It's nothing more than barely-intellectual
masturbation: A pair of twits reinforcing each others
self-declared superiority over another.
And when you're not too busy slapping yourselves on
the back, what are you doing? Jabbing at some of the
most blatant trolls that usenet ever produced.
Oh, yeah, like THAT'S "intellectually challenging"...
Sheesh!
"It don't take a weather man to know which way the
wind blows."
--Bob Dylan
And, honey, it don't take brains to go toe-to-toe
with a troll.
Let's take a look at you, shall we?
Already you've posted, what? A half-dozen or more
articles today, and the LEAST self indulgent and
closest to intelligent amongst them was an "observation"
(of sorts) of fundy claims concerning fossils... in a
thread about unfossilized dinosaur remains.
"Missed it by >That< much"
--Maxwell Smart
You see the same thing in sci.skeptic. No, not a lot
of posters that anyone would mistaken for "Smart,"
but a lot of special-needs students desperately trying
to prop up their egos by picking battles of wits with
the absolute easiest opponents they can find.
You don't do that because you know you're smart --
despite what you might be telling each other -- you
do that because you know you're an idiot.
jillery
<snip>
and all that you say about everybody else applies as well to you.
Ken Shackleton
> Ken Shackleton <ken.shackle...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > If someone is called an idiot, that may simply be
> > an observation rather than an argument.
>
> what -- taints the entire argument as ad hominem... even
> if it is only one word in a many paragraph reply.
I don't know if I would agree with them. It may taint any good will
that might have existed between the parties, but the argument is a
separate entity.
>
> I'd say that that it's only ad hominem if this "observation"
> is in the place of, used instead of or as the argument itself.
Agreed
>
> So, "You're ugly and Monday isn't spelled with an 'r'" isn't
> ad hominem, while "you're ugly" is.
>
> > The idiot's argument might well fail for other [good]
> > reasons, but an idiot they may be in any event.
>
> One way to tell an idiot from a non-idiot is their inability
> to articulate an argument.
One method among many.
Ken Shackleton
> In article
> <f151c10b-4dd3-4906-b950-b33b42858...@k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Ken Shackleton <ken.shackle...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > I find it strange that an accusation of ad hom fallacy is often the
> > first response to insult.
>
> > rather than an argument.
>
> > usually not meant as an argument against their position [which would
> > be fallacious]. I believe that it is more typically an observation.
>
> > idiot they may be in any event.
>
> > shouldn't surprise me at all.
>
> be part of an offered argument designed, as a rhetorical ploy, to
> poison the well of your opponent), so it cannot be a fallacy.
However, it would be a fallacy if it was used as an argument...yes?
>
> Second, the use of ad hominem in argument can be legitimate if the
> character of the disputant is directly relevant to the conclusion
> reached (i.e., it is not and ad hominem *fallacy* to note that the
> testimony comes from a well-known liar, although it is ad hominem).
Agreed.
>
> Third, there are no non-subjective standards for insulting someone as
> an idiot, so I would shy away from using it in any conversation
I try....Lord knows I try.....
;)
el cid
> On Feb 2, 1:38�am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ken Shackleton <ken.shackle...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > > If someone is called an idiot, that may simply be
> > > an observation rather than an argument.
>
> > The purists say that any resulting remark -- no matter
> > what -- taints the entire argument as ad hominem... even
> > if it is only one word in a many paragraph reply.
>
> I don't know if I would agree with them. It may taint any good will
> that might have existed between the parties, but the argument is a
> separate entity.
Your type would say that.
(I say, that's a joke son, a joke -- Foghorn Leghorn)
Ad hominem fallacies follow the model of claiming that
the Argument X is invalid (or valid) because it was forwarded by
Y who is a Z.
It is as fallacious to say that evolution is correct because it
is the theory of godless scientists as it is to say that evolution
is wrong because it is the theory of godless scientists.
You are free to play madlibs with the adjective before scientists
as well as with the noun scientists. It's really the same as
the fallacy of an appeal to authority or disauthority but usually
with an extra tinge of emotional appeal that invokes something
akin to guilt by associate.
Aspersions upon ancestry seem to be a popular form, often with
references to the past employment history of an individuals
female parent and either accusations about a specific male
parent or even uncertainty in that respect.
> > I'd say that that it's only ad hominem if this "observation"
> > is in the place of, used instead of or as the argument itself.
>
> Agreed
You probably shouldn't (you dog son of a whore -- See Foghorn
Leghorn).
The reason you shouldn't is because there is a likely
continued confusion between ad hominem attack and an
ad hominem fallacy. Again, the fallacy is a failure
respective to logical form as the author of an argument
is irrelevant to the validity of the argument. It may
be relevant to ones willingness to accept it without fully
understanding it but that is neither here to there
respective to its actual validity.
The motives for an ad hominem attack are a separate issue
and have more to do with civility than logic. The notable
exception is when the attacks are used in a way to implicitly
invoke ad hominem fallacies for anything said scoundrel
should advocate for (or against). This does provide for a
very slippery slope.
Ken Shackleton
> On Feb 2, 11:06�am, Ken Shackleton <ken.shackle...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 2, 1:38�am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ken Shackleton <ken.shackle...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > > > If someone is called an idiot, that may simply be
> > > > an observation rather than an argument.
>
> > > The purists say that any resulting remark -- no matter
> > > what -- taints the entire argument as ad hominem... even
> > > if it is only one word in a many paragraph reply.
>
> > I don't know if I would agree with them. It may taint any good will
> > that might have existed between the parties, but the argument is a
> > separate entity.
>
> Your type would say that.
> (I say, that's a joke son, a joke -- Foghorn Leghorn)
>
> Ad hominem fallacies follow the model of claiming that
> the Argument X is invalid (or valid) because it was forwarded by
> Y who is a Z.
Yes...I agree.
If the ad hom is simply an attack, and not being used as argument,
then no fallacy has been committed.
>
> It is as fallacious to say that evolution is correct because it
> is the theory of godless scientists as it is to say that evolution
> is wrong because it is the theory of godless scientists.
> You are free to play madlibs with the adjective before scientists
> as well as with the noun scientists. It's really the same as
> the fallacy of an appeal to authority or disauthority but usually
> with an extra tinge of emotional appeal that invokes something
> akin to guilt by associate.
>
> Aspersions upon ancestry seem to be a popular form, often with
> references to the past employment history of an individuals
> female parent and either accusations about a specific male
> parent or even uncertainty in that respect.
>
> > > I'd say that that it's only ad hominem if this "observation"
> > > is in the place of, used instead of or as the argument itself.
>
> > Agreed
>
> You probably shouldn't (you dog son of a whore -- See Foghorn
> Leghorn).
>
> The reason you shouldn't is because there is a likely
> continued confusion between ad hominem attack and an
> ad hominem fallacy.
Not by me any longer. I may be reading meaning into JTEMs words, but I
take his statement to be referring to the fallacy alone.
> Again, the fallacy is a failure
> respective to logical form as the author of an argument
> is irrelevant to the validity of the argument.
Agreed.
jillery
Yes. To worry about what form of insult qualifies as an ad hominem
begs the question about why one should avoid them in the first place.
However, following the path blazed by the opposition has some value.
Burkhard
> el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's an ad hominem fallacy to say that Mr. Smith's
> > argument is wrong because Mr. Smith is ignorant.
>
> > To say that Mr. Smith's invalid argument suggest he
> > is ignorant regarding the topic at hand is different.
>
> You're wrong, of course. In fact, your second example
> is the classic use of the fallacious argument, as you
> present it here.
>
> There no deconstruction of the opposing view... no
> articulation of a counter argument... nothing more than
> an insulting denouncement of an opponent.
>
Seems to me Cid is right. If we have already decided ( for
independent reasons) that Mr Smith argument is invalid, then this is
indeed one data point to infer he is ignorant. On what other basis
would you make that type of assessment?
Burkhard
relevance fallacy - the evidence offered is not in any reliable way
linked to the conclusion drawn.
Ernest Major
<34818a4b-cf73-481c...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> writes
>On Feb 2, 3:27�pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > It's an ad hominem fallacy to say that Mr. Smith's
>> > argument is wrong because Mr. Smith is ignorant.
>>
>> > To say that Mr. Smith's invalid argument suggest he
>> > is ignorant regarding the topic at hand is different.
>>
>> You're wrong, of course. In fact, your second example
>> is the classic use of the fallacious argument, as you
>> present it here.
>>
>> There no deconstruction of the opposing view... no
>> articulation of a counter argument... nothing more than
>> an insulting denouncement of an opponent.
>>
>
>Seems to me Cid is right. If we have already decided ( for
>independent reasons) that Mr Smith argument is invalid, then this is
>indeed one data point to infer he is ignorant. On what other basis
>would you make that type of assessment?
It would be a weak data point - one has to consider the other three
branches of the tetrachotomy - idiotic, insane or immoral. (And while
inspired doesn't apply here, perhaps there should be a 5th branch -
something to do with tunnel vision? - but an alliterative descriptor
isn't coming to mind.)
>
>
>> > The key of course is that the focus must be on the
>> > argument and its validity or lack of validity.
>>
>> No. The "Key" is whether -- as in your case -- the insult
>> *Is* the argument.
>
>
--
alias Ernest Major
el cid
> On Feb 2, 3:27�pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It's an ad hominem fallacy to say that Mr. Smith's
> > > argument is wrong because Mr. Smith is ignorant.
>
> > > To say that Mr. Smith's invalid argument suggest he
> > > is ignorant regarding the topic at hand is different.
>
> > You're wrong, of course. In fact, your second example
> > is the classic use of the fallacious argument, as you
> > present it here.
>
> > There no deconstruction of the opposing view... no
> > articulation of a counter argument... nothing more than
> > an insulting denouncement of an opponent.
>
> Seems to me Cid is right. �If we have already decided ( for
> independent reasons) that Mr Smith argument is invalid, then this is
> indeed one data point to infer he is ignorant. On what other basis
> would you make that type of assessment?
Yes, you followed my English correctly.
My second argument is that because Mr Smith made an invalid
argument about X, he seems to be ignorant about X.
That argument has a premise, that Mr. Smith made an invalid
argument. The premise may be true or false but it is a
premise not a conclusion so if there is a fallacy it is
a fallacy of a faulty premise, not an illogical form.
An ad hominem fallacy is an illogical form, irrespective
of the truth or falsehood of stated premise or conclusion.
> > > The key of course is that the focus must be on the
> > > argument and its validity or lack of validity.
> > No. The "Key" is whether -- as in your case -- the insult
> > *Is* the argument.
And it was not. I conclude therefore that your understanding
of the vocabulary used to describe logically argumentation
is non-standard or that something external to the actual
words used in the post have confounded your judgement.
I might argue that it means you are ignorant of these terms
but while that is a possible conclusion, it is not the only
one available. For reasons I will not expand on here, I expect
that a contrarian demeanor is more important in how you
composed your response than any knowledge or lack of knowledge
properly attributed to you.
jillery
>
> > el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It's an ad hominem fallacy to say that Mr. Smith's
> > > argument is wrong because Mr. Smith is ignorant.
>
> > > To say that Mr. Smith's invalid argument suggest he
> > > is ignorant regarding the topic at hand is different.
>
> > You're wrong, of course. In fact, your second example
> > is the classic use of the fallacious argument, as you
> > present it here.
>
> > There no deconstruction of the opposing view... no
> > articulation of a counter argument... nothing more than
> > an insulting denouncement of an opponent.
>
> Seems to me Cid is right. �If we have already decided ( for
> independent reasons) that Mr Smith argument is invalid, then this is
> indeed one data point to infer he is ignorant. On what other basis
> would you make that type of assessment?
There is no particular insult to being ignorant. We all start out
life being almost totally ignorant, and even the most brilliant among
us leave this world little different, compared to all that can be
known. The problem is not ignorance but what people do about it.
Denying it doesn't help. Blaming others doesn't help. Declaring it a
personal asset doesn't help. These things fall into the category of
willful ignorance, and arrogant stupidity is a subset of that.
> > > The key of course is that the focus must be on the
> > > argument and its validity or lack of validity.
>
> > No. The "Key" is whether -- as in your case -- the insult
> > *Is* the argument.- Hide quoted text -
el cid
> Yes. �To worry about what form of insult qualifies as an ad hominem
> begs the question about why one should avoid them in the first place.
> However, following the path blazed by the opposition has some value.
Oh no you didn't!!! ---begs the question---
Naughty naughty Jillery. And in a thread about logical fallacy.
Idiomatically common yes but poor form never-the-less.
As a penance for your crime, besides looking it up yourself and
dealing with those who 'help', you are sentenced to always
specify if you mean ad hominem fallacy or ad hominem attack and
to never leave ambiguity in meaning between the two.
el cid
For entertainment value should anyone not have seen these.
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~benham/funstuff/logical.html
(note Marlowe posted here back in The Golden Age of T.O)
* Ad hominem arguments are the tools of scoundrels and blackguards.
Therefore, they are invalid.
* If you had any consideration for my feelings, you wouldn't argue
from an appeal to pity.
* What would your mother say if you argued from an appeal to
sentiment?
* I don't understand how anyone could argue from an appeal to
incredulity.
* If you argue from an appeal to force, I'll have to beat you up.
* You are far too intelligent to accept an argument based on an appeal
to vanity.
* Everyone knows that an argument from appeal to popular opinion is
invalid.
* Circular reasoning means assuming what you're trying to prove. This
form of
argument is invalid becuase it's circular.
* As Aristotle said, arguments from an appeal to authority are
invalid.
* Post hoc ergo proptor hoc arguments often precede false
conclusions.
Hence, this type of argument is invalid.
* Using the Argumentum ad Consequentiam makes for unpleasant
discussions.
Hence, it must be a logical fallacy.
* The argumentum ad nauseum is invalid. The argumentum ad nauseum is
invalid.
The argumentum ad nauseum is invalid. If three repetitions of this
principle
haven't convinced you, I'll just have to say it again: the argumentun
ad nauseum
is invalid.
* Ancient wisdom teaches that the argumentum ad antiquitatem is
invalid.
* An argument is emotional and no substitute for reasoned discussion.
But proof by equivocation is a kind of argument. Thus, a proof by
equivocation is no substitute for a valid proof.
* If we accept slippery slope arguments, we may have to accept other
forms of weak arguments. Eventually, we won't be able to reason at
all.
Hence, we must reject slippery slope arguments as invalid.
* A real logician would never make an argument based on the "No true
Scotsman" fallacy. If anyone who claims to be logical and makes
arguments based on this fallacy, you may rest assured that s/he
is not a real logician.
* An argument based on a logical fallacy often leads to a false
conclusion. Affirming the consequent often leads to a false
conclusion. Therefore, affirming the consequent is a fallacy.
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
> Note I'm reverting somewhat to a hybrid of the greek meaning
> of idiot to be one who is too wrapped up in their own 'reality'
> to successfully take part in society.
Well, if so, it doesn't work too well. The Greek meanings move out from
"private citizen" through "layman"; "uneducated" and "clumsy" come in
later, and I don't see any justification at all for your "self-absorbed"
sense. Best to stick with convention, I reckon.
--
Mike.
jillery
I would never deny I was naughty. But if you are going to punish me,
can you at least say what is it about "begs the question" you deem
punishable? I need to know, if only to make sure I do it again :-P
JTEM
Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> If we have already decided ( for independent reasons) that
> Mr Smith argument is invalid,
Something morons are quite adept at doing, even when an
argument is sound. 'Tis one of the reason we call them
"morons."
("Deciding" is __Not__ and argument)
> On what other basis would you make that type of assessment?
It was never about making an assessment. The topic is
ad hominem "Arguments." If you substitute "You're a
moron" in the place of a legitimate argument, it constitutes
ad hominem. Period. This is true regardless of why you
chose to do this.
JTEM
el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That argument has a premise, that Mr. Smith made an invalid
> argument. The premise may be true or false but it is a
> premise not a conclusion
File that one under "Distinctions without a difference."
JTEM
Burkhard
> Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> If we have already decided ( for independent reasons) that Mr Smith
>> argument is invalid,
>
> Something morons are quite adept at doing, even when an argument is
> sound. 'Tis one of the reason we call them "morons."
>
> ("Deciding" is __Not__ and argument)
No, it was an illustration to help you understand what Cid wrote.
His argument has a premise: "Mr Smith argument is invalid" and a
conclusion " He is incompetent".
To evaluate the formal validity of an argument, we _assume_ that the
premise is right (hence my "decided previously on independent
evidence")and ask if the correctness of the premise either guarantees
the truth of the conclusion, or makes the truth of the conclusion at
least more likely true.
The hypothesised fact that MR Smith made an invalid point is evidence
for/relevantly related to the claim that he is incompetent. Hence, no ad
hominem fallacy.
>
>> On what other basis would you make that type of assessment?
>
> It was never about making an assessment. The topic is ad hominem
> "Arguments."
Yes? You make an assessment whether or not a given argument is an ad
hominem argument. For that, you have to make in turn an assessment if
the premises validly support the conclusion. if it does, then it is not
an ad hominem
If you substitute "You're a
> moron" in the place of a legitimate argument, it constitutes ad
> hominem. Period.
>This is true regardless of why you
> chose to do this.
>
And what has that to do with anything I said? The fact remains that Cids
argument was not ad hominem. It is an inference from a premise which, if
true, increases the likelihood of the conclusion being true too. That
means it does not have the form of an ad hominem fallacy. Motives don't
come into it.
>
el cid
Me sad. I had hoped you'd at least look up 'begging the question'
on wiki. Had you done so you would have seen that bigging the question
refers to circular reasoning and is misused in places of 'ask the
question'. I suggest the following link.
All in good fun you know.
Mike Dworetsky
> I find it strange that an accusation of ad hom fallacy is often the
> first response to insult.
>
> If someone is called an idiot, that may simply be an observation
> rather than an argument.
>
> If someone loses their temper and calls another an idiot, it is
> usually not meant as an argument against their position [which would
> be fallacious]. I believe that it is more typically an observation.
>
> The idiot's argument might well fail for other [good] reasons, but an
> idiot they may be in any event.
>
> On reflection, perhap's an idiot's response to being labelled as such
> shouldn't surprise me at all.
Whoever put together these wikipedia pages has done a pretty good job IMHO:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Abuse or insult in itself is not an ad hominem argument unless the insult
has some bearing on the arguments being made. Quoting the section:
"In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse.
Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a
speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the
argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad
hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the
argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical
fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal
attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments."
"You are just an ignorant twit." This is an insult and it is abusive, but it
is not an argument. Because it is not an argument, it cannot be a fallacy.
Of course, that doesn't mean that such personal insults are OK - just that
when they appear alone, they aren't logical fallacies."
jillery
Don't be sad. In fact, I did Wiki it, just to make sure I knew what I
knew. But Wiki doesn't tell me why you think its a problem. You
did. Thank you.
FWIW I learned the original meaning of the phrase, and used it that
way for the longest time, but nobody understood me. Over time I
became acclimated to the "modern" usage, and I wasn't even aware I did
it until you mentioned it. In one sense, it's a bit like "I could
care less", yet another grammatical battle the masses have won by
sheer numbers.
According to Wiki, you are a prescriptive grammarian. I've never been
punished by one of them before. I'm looking forward to it.
John Wilkins
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
He may be using it idiomatically.
el cid
Not until we agree upon a safe-word.
John Wilkins
<0883bccf-1b9c-47f4...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 3:53锟絧m, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> > I was trying to make the distinction between:
> > 1) an ad hominem
> > 2) an ad hominem fallacy
> >
> > An ad hominem can be truthful and relevant.
> >
> > An ad hominem fallacy normally contains a premise (which may be true
> > and relevant) that is 锟絝allaciously connected to a conclusion (which
> > likewise may be true or false). 锟絀t is a fallacy because fools/liars
> > can make valid arguments and geniuses/saints false ones.
> >
> > Your statements appeared to imply that an ad hominem is inconsistent
> > with truth or logic. 锟絀t is not, unless it is connected to an
> > irrelevant conclusion, at which point it becomes a fallacy.
> >
> >
> >
> With other words, an ad hominem fallacy is essentially one type of
> relevance fallacy - the evidence offered is not in any reliable way
> linked to the conclusion drawn.
>
Exactly so. It is a rhetorical fallacy that draws the audience to a
conclusion not supported by the presented argument. When the argument
relies upon ad hominem premises, and the argument is sound, then it is
not a fallacy. E.g.,
P1. You claim God created the earth
P2. You are an idiot
C. God did not create the earth
is a fallacy. But
P1. You claim to have studied enough to make God's creation a certainty
P2. You demonstrate daily your inability to reason or comprehend
C. Your claim is not supported (i.e., we don't believe that claim on
your sayso)
is not.
el cid
> In article <hk9ufj$cv...@news.eternal-september.org>, Mike Lyle
>
> <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > el cid wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > > Note I'm reverting somewhat to a hybrid of the greek meaning
> > > of idiot to be one who is too wrapped up in their own 'reality'
> > > to successfully take part in society.
>
> > Well, if so, it doesn't work too well. The Greek meanings move out from
> > "private citizen" through "layman"; "uneducated" and "clumsy" come in
> > later, and I don't see any justification at all for your "self-absorbed"
> > sense. Best to stick with convention, I reckon.
>
> He may be using it idiomatically.
Or idiosyncratically but more like idiosemantically.
Ernest Major
<jo...@wilkins.id.au> writes
second case, if P2 were to be false, the argument would be factually
incorrect, but not logically fallacious, or is using a false premise
considered a fallacy?
--
alias Ernest Major
jillery
>
> - Show quoted text -
Despite the risk of attracting meaningless snipes from the peanut
gallery, I admit I am confused. Apart from a symantic quibble about
the impossibility of certainty, I see no functional difference between
your two cases. It seems to me that one is just a verbose version of
the other with the same logical meaning. What am I missing here?
Also, are you saying that a statement can be an ad hominem and still
be a logically sound argument?
Ernest Major
<3f6eb58f-4a0b-42a6...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> writes
Let G be the statement "God created the earth". In the first case the
conclusion is "not G". In the second case the conclusion is "G or not
G". The more specific nature of P1 and P2 in the second case also make a
difference, but IMO it's the different conclusion which is the larger
difference.
>
>Also, are you saying that a statement can be an ad hominem and still
>be a logically sound argument?
>
--
alias Ernest Major
John Wilkins
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
No, it's just a mistake. In fact, if we replace P2 with
P2*. You demonstrate daily your ability to reason and comprehend
the argument may support belief in P1. It's not a deductively sound
argument, but more like one of induction or likelihood.
John Wilkins
<3f6eb58f-4a0b-42a6...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Few arguments are logically sound. It can be ad hominem and still be
acceptable reasoning or argument. In the second argument, the ad
hominem is relevant to the conclusion. In the first, it isn't.
Friar Broccoli
> On Feb 2, 6:24�pm, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <0883bccf-1b9c-47f4-872f-e45f214f0...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > ...
> > > > I was trying to make the distinction between:
> > > > 1) an ad hominem
> > > > 2) an ad hominem fallacy
>
> > > > An ad hominem can be truthful and relevant.
>
> > > > An ad hominem fallacy normally contains a premise (which may be true
> > > > likewise may be true or false). �It is a fallacy because fools/liars
> > > > can make valid arguments and geniuses/saints false ones.
>
> > > > Your statements appeared to imply that an ad hominem is inconsistent
> > > > irrelevant conclusion, at which point it becomes a fallacy.
>
> > > With other words, an ad hominem fallacy is essentially one type of
> > > relevance fallacy - the evidence offered is not in any reliable way
> > > linked to the conclusion drawn.
>
> > Exactly so. It is a rhetorical fallacy that draws the audience to a
> > conclusion not supported by the presented argument. When the argument
> > relies upon ad hominem premises, and the argument is sound, then it is
> > not a fallacy. E.g.,
>
> > P1. You claim God created the earth
> > P2. You are an idiot
> > C. God did not create the earth
>
> > is a fallacy. But
>
> > P1. You claim to have studied enough to make God's creation a certainty
> > P2. You demonstrate daily your inability to reason or comprehend
> > C. Your claim is not supported (i.e., we don't believe that claim on
> > your sayso)
>
> > is not.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Despite the risk of attracting meaningless snipes from the peanut
> gallery, I admit I am confused. �Apart from a symantic quibble about
> the impossibility of certainty, I see no functional difference between
> your two cases. �It seems to me that one is just a verbose version of
> the other with the same logical meaning. �What am I missing here?
As I see it P1 and P2 in both arguments are functionally the same.
C in the invalid argument is a statement about an external fact that
is true or false independent of any possible state of our idiot.
C in the valid argument is effectively a statement about the
reliability of information coming from the idiot concerning the
external fact, not a statement about the external fact itself.
> Also, are you saying that a statement can be an ad hominem and still
> be a logically sound argument?
Yes, if the conclusion is a reasonable inference from the ad hominem
premise.
William Morse
> On Feb 2, 6:24 pm, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>> In article
>> <0883bccf-1b9c-47f4-872f-e45f214f0...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> ...
>>>> I was trying to make the distinction between:
>>>> 1) an ad hominem
>>>> 2) an ad hominem fallacy
>>>> An ad hominem can be truthful and relevant.
>>>> An ad hominem fallacy normally contains a premise (which may be true
>>>> likewise may be true or false). It is a fallacy because fools/liars
>>>> can make valid arguments and geniuses/saints false ones.
>>>> Your statements appeared to imply that an ad hominem is inconsistent
>>>> irrelevant conclusion, at which point it becomes a fallacy.
>>> With other words, an ad hominem fallacy is essentially one type of
>>> relevance fallacy - the evidence offered is not in any reliable way
>>> linked to the conclusion drawn.
>> Exactly so. It is a rhetorical fallacy that draws the audience to a
>> conclusion not supported by the presented argument. When the argument
>> relies upon ad hominem premises, and the argument is sound, then it is
>> not a fallacy. E.g.,
>>
>> P1. You claim God created the earth
>> P2. You are an idiot
>> C. God did not create the earth
>>
>> is a fallacy. But
>>
>> P1. You claim to have studied enough to make God's creation a certainty
>> P2. You demonstrate daily your inability to reason or comprehend
>> C. Your claim is not supported (i.e., we don't believe that claim on
>> your sayso)
>>
>> is not.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Despite the risk of attracting meaningless snipes from the peanut
> gallery, I admit I am confused. Apart from a symantic quibble about
> the impossibility of certainty, I see no functional difference between
> your two cases. It seems to me that one is just a verbose version of
> the other with the same logical meaning. What am I missing here?
The difference between the two cases is not in the truth of the claim,
but in the validity of attacking the claim. Perhaps a different example
will help. For the first case, let's say we have a known idiot claiming
that the earth is spherical. Then we have
P1. You claim that the earth is spherical
P2. You are an idiot
P3. Therefore the earth is not spherical.
I think it is easy to understand that even if P2 is true, i.e. the
person making the statement is an idiot, that does not imply that the
person's statement is false.
In the second case the point is that the person is staking the validity
of their claim on their knowledge. A good analogy might be expert
testimony. Let's say we have a trial, and the prosecutor brings in an
expert witness, who testifies that the hair found at the scene matches
that of the defendant. The defense might argue
P1. You claim that the hair matches that of the defendant
P2. On five recent occasions DNA evidence has shown that your hair
matches were incorrect.
P3. Therefore we don't believe your claim about the hair match.
In this case, if in fact P2 is true, that would lead one to agree with
P3 vs. P1.
In both these cases P2 is an ad hominem attack - it is an attack against
the individual rather than against the argument. The point is that in
the second case the ad hominem attack is not a logical fallacy, while in
the first it is.
> Also, are you saying that a statement can be an ad hominem and still
> be a logically sound argument?
As I tried to clarify above, I would say yes. If the argument is based
on authority, then attacks on the authority are logically sound.
I would further note that ad hominem attacks are unlikely to win friends
and influence people (giving a nod to Dale Carnegie), and that even
questions of authority are more convincingly raised by specific examples
of errors than by insulting character references,
jillery
Yes, now I see the difference in the conclusions. The valid case
allows that the claim might be supported in other ways.
> > Also, are you saying that a statement can be an ad hominem and still
> > be a logically sound argument?
>
> Yes, if the conclusion is a reasonable inference from the ad hominem
> premise.- Hide quoted text -
Ok. Ad hominem fallacy, bad. Ad hominem, maybe good.
Burkhard
> In message <030220100924437109%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John Wilkins
> <jo...@wilkins.id.au> writes
>> In article
>> <0883bccf-1b9c-47f4...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
>> Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>> > I was trying to make the distinction between:
>>> > 1) an ad hominem
>>> > 2) an ad hominem fallacy
>>> >
>>> > An ad hominem can be truthful and relevant.
>>> >
>>> > An ad hominem fallacy normally contains a premise (which may be true
>>> > likewise may be true or false). It is a fallacy because fools/liars
>>> > can make valid arguments and geniuses/saints false ones.
>>> >
>>> > Your statements appeared to imply that an ad hominem is inconsistent
>>> > irrelevant conclusion, at which point it becomes a fallacy.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> With other words, an ad hominem fallacy is essentially one type of
>>> relevance fallacy - the evidence offered is not in any reliable way
>>> linked to the conclusion drawn.
>>>
>> Exactly so. It is a rhetorical fallacy that draws the audience to a
>> conclusion not supported by the presented argument. When the argument
>> relies upon ad hominem premises, and the argument is sound, then it is
>> not a fallacy. E.g.,
>>
>> P1. You claim God created the earth
>> P2. You are an idiot
>> C. God did not create the earth
>>
>> is a fallacy. But
>>
>> P1. You claim to have studied enough to make God's creation a certainty
>> P2. You demonstrate daily your inability to reason or comprehend
>> C. Your claim is not supported (i.e., we don't believe that claim on
>> your sayso)
>>
>> is not.
>>
> If you pardon a little elaboration, am I correct in thinking that in the
> second case, if P2 were to be false, the argument would be factually
> incorrect, but not logically fallacious, or is using a false premise
> considered a fallacy?
No (that is, you're correct in thinking...). Whether something is a
fallacy should be determinable by looking at the form of the argument
alone, not the world, it is a question of logic and not of fact.
JTEM
Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> His argument has a premise: "Mr Smith argument is invalid"
Which is a conclusion.
"Distinction without a difference."
> and a conclusion " He is incompetent".
Circular reasoning. "He's an idiot because I decided
that he is."
Sure, you can try and mask it with different words,
but regardless of how you phrase it, it's the same
thing.
Burkhard
You determine if someone is an idiot by the arguments he made. Making
invalid arguments is hence a relevant data point to decide if someone is
an idiot. No circularity involved.
You can of course query further: on which bases do you think the premise
is true? But this has no bearing on the form or validity of the argument.
Erwin Moller
> On Feb 2, 3:42 am, Erwin Moller
> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
>> Ken Shackleton schreef:
>>
>> Hi Ken,
>>
>>> I find it strange that an accusation of ad hom fallacy is often the
>>> first response to insult.
>>> If someone is called an idiot, that may simply be an observation
>>> rather than an argument.
>> But of course, being called an idiot isn't excactly nice.
>> When discussing something it is better to stay polite, even if you think
>> you have objective reasons to call somebody an idiot.
>>
>>
>>
>>> If someone loses their temper and calls another an idiot, it is
>>> usually not meant as an argument against their position [which would
>>> be fallacious]. I believe that it is more typically an observation.
>>> The idiot's argument might well fail for other [good] reasons, but an
>>> idiot they may be in any event.
>>
>>
>>
>>> On reflection, perhap's an idiot's response to being labelled as such
>>> shouldn't surprise me at all.
>
> It's not that I enjoy the use of flaming responses, but I have fallen
> victim to my emotions at times as have most people.
>
> My understanding of the ad hom fallacy is when you use insult rather
> than argument and then claim victory. I frequently see these threads
> unfold where one party is making a legitimate error, and that error is
> being pointed out properly at first....then the party in error refuses
> to acknowledge the legitimate criticism, and then gets insulted for
> their stupidity [or some such thing].
>
> The defense to that [especially by creationists] is to claim ad hom
> and use that as a defense for their initial position....which was
> wrong on its face to begin with.
All too true.
It happens all the time.
But if you stay very very polite they will weasel out of a discussion
using other reasons.
(Or simply ignore you completely, like our beloved Madman/ASI does all
the time in here when confronted with his misunderstandings/falsehoods.)
At alt.talk.creationism I tried a few times to stay utterly polite when
discussion stuff with a particular boneheaded creationist, thus denying
him that easy way out by giving him the ad hominem argument to end the
discussion.
It ended with his observation that I wasn't in the 'right mindset' to
understand his words of wisdom.
They will use any reason to end a discussion....
I cannot remember a finished discussion with a creationist.
When a discussion outgrows the stage of stating opinions, they end it.
I think we all know the reason for that.
>
> This is a common pattern in these threads, and it often strikes me as
> odd....but I guess that I should expect such shenanigans in these
> discussions.
>
>> Are you sometimes calling other people idiots and are you surprised that
>> your (objective?) opinion is taken as an insult?
>
>
> No, what surprised me was how criticism is ignored or avoided and then
> the insult received is then used as a claim that the criticism is
> fallacious.
Yes, it is annoying indeed.
My opinion is that they simply have nothing else to say than the things
they said already a few million times, which for the better part turned
out to be falsehoods.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Mike Lyle
Or idiolectally...
I find from Auntie that there was once "idiocrasy" (syn. of "~syn~").
Our creatorists need not be disappointed to learn that I found no sign
of a word "idiotocracy": their kingdom is, after all, not of this world.
--
Mike.
Karl Lembke
<ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>I find it strange that an accusation of ad hom fallacy is often the
>first response to insult.
That's because people often think of only the "ad hominem" phrase and
call any personal attack for any reason an "ad hominem" attack.
The full phrase is "argumentum ad hominem" or "argument toward the
man". It describes a logical argument in the form of:
"Person X has quality Y
Therefore statement Z made by person X is true."
Just to make matters worse, the argumentum ad hominem is an *informal*
fallacy, which means that an argument with the same form as an ad
hominem fallacy is not necessarily fallacious. Sometimes a character
trait is directly relevant to an argument.
...................Karl