ad hominem arguments

Remove all ads!

I know of at least three types of ad hominem arguments

1) Ad hominem abusive or ad personam - insulting or belittling one's opponent or bringing up character flaws that have nothing to do with argument.

2) Ad hominem circumstantial- This is the argument that the person is biased which may be true but according to the rules of logic does not make his/her argument false.

3) Ad hominem tu quoque - This is the argument using irrelevant accusation of hypocrisy.

There is also the agrument of guilt by association. You make a claim, Group XYZ makes the same claim, therefore you belong to Group XYZ

Perhaps those of us who post in AoDA or AoLS should give a little thought to the Rules of Logic as well as the Rules of the Board.

 

Good attempt, Nakia. But I am afraid it may fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes).

The use of logic requires a logical mind. A sad lesson from my first marriage.

 

T2Bruno, so true but I was thinking about it and it is more fun to share one's thoughts than to keep them to oneself. Plus it is always of interest to me see what others reactions are.

 

The very concept of the ad hominem argument being a logical fallacy is almost unknown today, IMHO.

I agree, Nakia, and tend to skip over posts that clearly rely on ad hominem arguments to make their points. But I'm not all that devoted a reader, anyway, and I'm a to boot.

Perhaps the state of public discourse in general is largely to blame here. As I learned in my introductory logic class in college, most logical fallacies are also rhetorical devices in political speech . So few people today have ever heard or read a well-reasoned argument they don't know they themselves are offering a poorly reasoned one. Again, IMHO as a .

 

Well, I was one of those English majors in college who had to defend every single statement that I made, whether on paper or in a classroom setting -- rhetorically. Was it Shakespeare who said: "To thine own self be true?" Or was it Polonius? The most "phony" character in _Hamlet_? Does the textual evidence prove that Shakpeare does not believe the line, since he gave it to Polonius, and that it is nothing more than a meaningless platitude? Or is Shakespeare simply being ironic? Or is it the missing component in Hamlet's character, which he needs to discover in order to advance, thus becoming the profound statement at the center of the play? Take your choice and prove your point. - Use, logic, use rhetoric and use the text to prove what you believe. My point in all this is that logic and rhetoric can only take one so far, although both are certainly very useful, as both Nakia and Revmaf point out, and I agree with that - for the most part.

But in the end you have to rely upon your own sense of judgment; you have to be willing to commit to what you believe is the right thing, and reject that which you believe is wrong. At times, you may not be able to put into words why you know something is right (rhetorical), or you may not be able to prove (logical) why you know something is right and something is wrong - but you KNOW it, because you have a set principles upon which you can draw upon to discover the difference between right and wrong. And the difference between right and wrong? Do you really need someone to tell you those things? So, it appears that Shakespeare was right after all...rhetorically speaking, of course.

 

Ah, but to agrue that Shakespeare didn't believe this and was being ironical is not that an ad hominem abusive agrument because the premises is based on a character flaw of Polonius? Could not the statement still be true even though Polonius said it?

With which I agree but gird up yourself and be prepared for ad hominem attacks of some sort.

rhetorically speaking of course.

 

It is ironic that it is a father's blessing upon his son, from a man who has never been "true" to himself in anyway during his career as a royal lackey. On one level, Polonius, (even the name seems to be a play upon the word phony), appears to be just rattling off the expected platitude that a father would bestow upon his son. Yet, at a deeper level, it is one (if not the most) profound statements, at the center of a play, which is one of the most important plays, by one of the most important writers in the English language, which makes it one of the most important...well, you've already gotten the point, Nakia, even before I posted this rambling tirade.

 

Thanks Chandos.

And so tempting to turn this into a Shakesperean discussion.

After all there is the ad hominem circumstantial argument regarding Shakespeare because he wrote to please the courts of Queen Elizabeth and her successor, King James.

Nothing like Shakespeare to bring out rhetoric.

 

Naturally....but it is important that you aren't simply rejecting any information solely because it is harmful to your case. If you can't come up with a cogent, factual argument in support of an idea, you probably need to look into the issue further. If. after so doing, you still can't come up with a cogent explanation for your belief, it's usually because your belief isn't true.

Don't get me wrong, as long as you aren't hurting anyone, believe whatever you want. Religion really isn't scientifically testable. The line should be drawn, however, at the point when you are forcing other people to live by the edicts of your faith solely because that's how your faith says you should live. The fact that there are multiple religions, each no more or less valid and provable than another, is the primary reason that we (are supposed to) keep religion out of politics.

 

Drew, yes, mainly, though sometimes you just don't understand it. I'm pretty sure that Gödel's incompleteness theorem is correct, and I believe better-informed people who tell me it is a gem of logical inference, but I don't understand it and therefore can't argue for it properly.

So, yes, logic takes you a certain distance. But as my long-gone professor used to say, it's like a sausage machine: put in good meat, and you get good sausage, but even the best sausage machine won't give you good sausage if you put in bad meat.

There, I always wanted to repeat that somewhere. After more than 30 years I finally got the chance.

 

Agreed. That's why I was cautious enough to say "usually". The problem that often happens, however, is that sometimes, when no logical explanation behind "idea X" exists, there exists a perfectly logical and valid disproof of "idea X". In such a case, I'd have to argue that "idea X" is probably wrong. If, however, no logical proof exists on either side of the equation, then logic is obviously of no use.

 

You're all morons.

[Amaster demonstrates the ad hominem ad personam]

 

Then we also have the Authoritarian Argument which is IMO the real trouble maker. This is the argument that DEF is an Authority so whatever (s)he said has to be true.

[ May 09, 2007, 03:39: Message edited by: Nakia ]

 

And since *I* think you're all morons, you can tar AMaster with the same brush as me.

[jaded demonstrates the 'guilt by association']

 

Such as this from Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

Bedevere: Exactly. So, logically...
Villager #1: If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood.
Bedevere: And therefore?
Villager #2: A witch!

A rebuttal to this argument can be found here. (NSFW)

And a possible ad homenim circumstantial:

Bedevere: How do you know she is a witch?
Villager #2: She looks like one.

 

That sounds more like frustration boiling over than any attempt at persuasion...

But does it not call into question the interpretation of the data provided? For example, two people both read Hamlet. One person thought it was great, the other thought it sucked. Opinions can't be proven right or wrong, but can they influence what they say about issues in it. One who likes it puts a glowing spin on a particular character, while the one that didn't would have a negative portrayal of the same character.

This one I have a harder time seeing. It's one thing to catch an inconsistency between words and behavoiur. The higher you set your moral/ethical bar, the harder it is to live up to those standards. It's another to actually prove that someone is blatantly opposed to the cause they champion...

Probably guilty here...

My take on Polonius is that he knew the book answers, but didn't live by them. He knew the advice to give, but couldn't follow it himself. Again, the higher the standard, the harder it is to live up to...

Then you get to differences in what these starting principles ought to be. That is where varied arguements get into these areas...

Remember that religion is not the only perpetrator in this matter. Many philosophical groups will take this stance and try to push their own views of morality and ethics on the masses. When they can't reach agreements that allow peaceful co-existence, then trouble continues...

But is it not an ad hominem arguement to deny any credibility based on rejection of the authority? So what are we allowed in such arguements?

So if I can fatten up a duck to weigh the same as a person that I don't like, I can have them burned at the stake...

 

Logic has very little to do with The Truth, but it is fundamental for persuasion and rhetorics. Why? Because it is a tool to avoid inconsistencies. Which is why logic is so useful in natural sciences as well.

For me it's simple. Everything's rhetorics, every single word we speak, all there to persuade people. Mathematics? Rhetorics. Physics? Rhetorics. It's not a question of what is or what isn't (true), but the most persuasive argument is the one that we all can look at and say "ok that seems like it might work and it seems true". Ad hominem arguments are just bad rhetorics, blatantly obvious to almost any person with any education, in most cases. Ad hominem arguments usually make me question the integrity of the person who uses them. But still, there's always something in them, isn't there...Trust between people isn't exactly something that has been thought of as a logical problem in the history of philosophy.

 

Logic or logical is a term I see a lot in these debates and discussions. Something doesn't seem logical to someone so it can't be true is an argument that is used. The fallacy of this argument (IMO) is that something may seem logical to me but not to others.

The Rules of Logic have been established for the same reason most rules are established: to keep us from falling into chaos and from using ad hominem attacks.

There are some things we can debate and some things we can discuss. We can debate whether or not a house cat should be declawed. We can only discuss whether or not cats have souls.

revmaf is unfortunately correct in that we have been influenced by political rhetoric. They all too frequently fall into mud slinging instead of a reasoned debate of the issues.

 

Mudslinging is one of the easiest ways of appealing to the masses educated by the fast tempo and the drama of tv-shows. cut to the commercial break...

...and we're back. The shortening of people's attention span seems almost as an intended goal making people more susceptible to rapid firing of emotionally appealing influences. Buy the new...make no mistake...to improve the quality of...

...back in 5, 4, 3... Saying the same message over and over again will make it more appealing when attentiveness is disrupted for a 2-3 minute period first; repetition is reinforcement. Not looking good enough? Wonderbar will make people look better! When looks count.

...and we're on... Whether intentional or unintentional, or something in between, all anyone really needs is a mandate from the people to lead. It doesn't matter whether the cause is good or not, as long as expences are met, loyal subjects are all that's required. People who don't think too much for themselves. That's bad for business, which makes the world go round.

Rhetorics is use of power and in politics this is more apparent than anywhere else, if for nothing else than then for the fact that people need at least some sort of figureheads, or putting it nicely, a good government has a goal to make it's powerstructures as transparent as possible. Power is language, language is power, but it is quite appalling how easily ad hominem arguments seem to be accepted. When it's good vs. evil, people swallow almost anything. Certain instances have actively encouraged people looking at things in terms of black & white throughout their history.

 

I hate rhetoric, I hate polotics. I like logic quite a bit, but please remember, everyone, that logic in and of itself is almost useless. There are VERY few things that you can prove or disprove with logic alone.

You see, I see two seperate developments occuring. Among the masses, I see a tendency to short attention spans, little to no logical understanding, and an overall under-use of the brain and rational thought. Among the 'intelectual elite' I see a development startlingly similar to the greek sciences, where logic is treated as the Word of God and little to no testing, experimentation, or attempts to verify these logical conclusions are made.

In my mind both are equally disturbing and dangerous.