Post by Optimus on Mar 13, 2017 20:18:55 GMT -5
...I do not think it means what you think it means.
I'm one of those nerds who likes to study discourse, rhetoric, logic, informal fallacies, etc. Like several of you, I'm usually pretty good at identifying these fallacies in other people's arguments (and trying as best as possible not to include them in mine) and the internet provides a wealth of opportunities to see people on message boards and comment sections employ a laundry list of these fallacies on a daily basis.
Some commenters, though, learn a teensy bit about fallacies and love to try to accuse other people of using them. Usually, these people seem to know only about one or two, and those two seem to be ad hominem and strawman, and they often misuse or misidentify them.
The one I see misused the most is people (falsely) claiming that someone else is engaging in an ad hominem (yes, I've even seen that here).
Anyway, I found a good post on a skeptic's blog I read that covers this - what it is, what it's not, when it's used, etc. - so I thought I'd share.
Link to the full post: thelogicofscience.com/2015/11/25/stop-accusing-me-of-ad-hominem-fallacies-you-stupid-idiots/
And a handy flowchart:
I'm one of those nerds who likes to study discourse, rhetoric, logic, informal fallacies, etc. Like several of you, I'm usually pretty good at identifying these fallacies in other people's arguments (and trying as best as possible not to include them in mine) and the internet provides a wealth of opportunities to see people on message boards and comment sections employ a laundry list of these fallacies on a daily basis.
Some commenters, though, learn a teensy bit about fallacies and love to try to accuse other people of using them. Usually, these people seem to know only about one or two, and those two seem to be ad hominem and strawman, and they often misuse or misidentify them.
The one I see misused the most is people (falsely) claiming that someone else is engaging in an ad hominem (yes, I've even seen that here).
Anyway, I found a good post on a skeptic's blog I read that covers this - what it is, what it's not, when it's used, etc. - so I thought I'd share.
There are three basic uses of ad hominem assaults, only one of which is fallacious. The first is simply name calling for the sake of name calling, and the title to this post was intended to be a sarcastic example of this. It is ad hominem, and it’s certainly in bad taste (at least it would be if it wasn’t sarcasm), but it’s not actually a fallacy because it’s not being used as an argument. In other words, simply insulting someone isn’t enough to make something a fallacy. In order to be an ad hominem fallacy, you have to use an attack on a person as a means of attacking their argument.
.....skip, skip....
This brings me to my final point and the third usage of ad hominem. There are situations in which you can attack the person instead of their argument without it being a fallacy. For example, let’s imaging a court room scenario where a key witness has identified the murderer, and the defense responds by providing evidence that the witness is a pathological liar. The defense’s argument is ad hominem because the attack is against the person not the person’s argument, but the attack is not fallacious because there is a serious question about this witness’s credibility. If the witness is truly a pathological liar, then they should not be trusted, and their testimony should be viewed as irrelevant. To be clear, the defense has to actually provide compelling evidence that the witness is a pathological liar in order for this argument to be valid. If they cannot back up that claim, then this argument is both an ad hominen fallacy and an ad hoc fallacy (as is the shill gambit).
Similarly, arguing that people like Vani Harri (aka the “Food Babe”), Sherri Tenpenny, Mercola, etc. shouldn’t be trusted because of the truly ludicrous claims that they have made is ad hominem, but it’s not fallacious because it raises serious and completely valid doubts about their credibility. For example, Vani Hari once argued that water crystallizes when you repeatedly say the words “Satan” or “Hitler” around it, and she was concerned that airplanes don’t contain 100% oxygen (the air you breathe is mostly nitrogen). By making these claims, she has demonstrated a terrifying level of scientific ignorance and illiteracy, and she has made it completely clear that she doesn’t know what she is talking about. So, when someone says that you should not trust her because she has frequently been exceedingly wrong, they are making an ad hominem assault, but not an ad hominem fallacy, because her credibility truly is in question. To be clear, however, you do have to be careful when making this type of argument. The fact that her arguments have repeatedly been comically erroneous means that she shouldn’t be trusted, but it does not automatically mean that she is wrong. In other words, if you say, “she is wrong about X because she has repeatedly been wrong in the past,” then you have constructed a logically invalid argument because it is always possible (however unlikely) that she will eventually be right about something. You can, however, say, “she should not be trusted about X and cannot be used as a source because she has repeatedly been wrong in the past,” and there is nothing fallacious about that.
.....skip, skip....
This brings me to my final point and the third usage of ad hominem. There are situations in which you can attack the person instead of their argument without it being a fallacy. For example, let’s imaging a court room scenario where a key witness has identified the murderer, and the defense responds by providing evidence that the witness is a pathological liar. The defense’s argument is ad hominem because the attack is against the person not the person’s argument, but the attack is not fallacious because there is a serious question about this witness’s credibility. If the witness is truly a pathological liar, then they should not be trusted, and their testimony should be viewed as irrelevant. To be clear, the defense has to actually provide compelling evidence that the witness is a pathological liar in order for this argument to be valid. If they cannot back up that claim, then this argument is both an ad hominen fallacy and an ad hoc fallacy (as is the shill gambit).
Similarly, arguing that people like Vani Harri (aka the “Food Babe”), Sherri Tenpenny, Mercola, etc. shouldn’t be trusted because of the truly ludicrous claims that they have made is ad hominem, but it’s not fallacious because it raises serious and completely valid doubts about their credibility. For example, Vani Hari once argued that water crystallizes when you repeatedly say the words “Satan” or “Hitler” around it, and she was concerned that airplanes don’t contain 100% oxygen (the air you breathe is mostly nitrogen). By making these claims, she has demonstrated a terrifying level of scientific ignorance and illiteracy, and she has made it completely clear that she doesn’t know what she is talking about. So, when someone says that you should not trust her because she has frequently been exceedingly wrong, they are making an ad hominem assault, but not an ad hominem fallacy, because her credibility truly is in question. To be clear, however, you do have to be careful when making this type of argument. The fact that her arguments have repeatedly been comically erroneous means that she shouldn’t be trusted, but it does not automatically mean that she is wrong. In other words, if you say, “she is wrong about X because she has repeatedly been wrong in the past,” then you have constructed a logically invalid argument because it is always possible (however unlikely) that she will eventually be right about something. You can, however, say, “she should not be trusted about X and cannot be used as a source because she has repeatedly been wrong in the past,” and there is nothing fallacious about that.
Link to the full post: thelogicofscience.com/2015/11/25/stop-accusing-me-of-ad-hominem-fallacies-you-stupid-idiots/
And a handy flowchart:
