Still working to recover. Please don't edit quite yet.

ad hominem

From Anarchopedia
Revision as of 07:59, 22 February 2011 by Anarchangel (Talk | contribs) (....Does not quite deserve the AP tag yet, but I got some of the most obviously noisome lawyering out of the lead)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity (WP) of a premise (WP) to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic fallacy (WP) of logic (logical fallacy.[2]

In law (WP), questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are allowed as evidence.[3] This does not make it less of a logical fallacy. For this reason and others there is a considerably lower standard of evidence in law than there is in formal logic.


Types

Abuse

Ad hominem abuse (WP) (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves Wikipedia:insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out ostensible or even factual character flaws or actions. This tactic is logically fallacious because the source of an argument is not the argument.

Examples:

  • "You can't believe Jack when he says the proposed policy would help the economy. He doesn't even have a job."
  • "Candidate Jane's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."

Circumstantial

Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that he is 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 Wikipedia:genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).[4]

The circumstantial fallacy only applies 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.[5]

Examples:

Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies's famous testimony during the Wikipedia:Profumo Affair, "Well, he would [say that], wouldn't he?", is an example of a valid circumstantial argument. Her point was that since a man in a prominent position, accused of an affair with a Wikipedia:callgirl, would deny the claim whether it was true or false, his denial, in itself, carries little evidential weight against the claim of an affair. Note, however, that this argument is valid only insofar as it devalues the denial; it does not bolster the original claim. To construe evidentiary invalidation of the denial as evidentiary validation of the original claim is fallacious (on several different bases, including that of argumentum ad hominem); however likely the man in question would be to deny an affair that did in fact happen, he could only be more likely to deny an affair that never did.

Conflict of Interest: Where a source seeks to convince by a claim of authority or by personal observation, identification of conflicts of interest are not ad hominem - it is generally well accepted that an "authority" needs to be objective and impartial, and that an audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source. Identification of a conflict of interest is appropriate, and concealment of a conflict of interest is a problem.

Tu quoque

Main article: Wikipedia:Tu quoque

Ad hominem Wikipedia:tu quoque (lit: "You too!") refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. In particular, if Source A criticizes the actions of Source B, a tu quoque response is that Source A has acted in the same way. This argument is fallacious because it does not disprove the argument; if the premise is true then Source A may be a hypocrite, but this does not make the statement less credible from a logical perspective. Indeed, Source A may be in a position to provide personal testimony to support the argument.

For example, a father may tell his son not to start smoking as he will regret it when he is older, and the son may point out that his father is or was a smoker. This does not alter the fact that his son may regret smoking when he is older.

Guilt by association

Main article: Wikipedia:Association fallacy

Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a source because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.[6]

This form of the argument is as follows:

Source S makes claim C.
Group G, which is currently viewed negatively by the recipient, also makes claim C.
Therefore, source S is viewed by the recipient of the claim as associated to the group G and inherits how negatively viewed it is.

Common misconceptions

W i k t i o n a r y
Definitions, etymology, pronunciation of
ad hominem

Gratuitous Wikipedia:verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an ad hominem or a logical fallacy.[7][8][9][10][11]

This is not to be confused with a true fallacy, which would be "X is idiotically ignorant [of politics], so why should we listen to him now?"

Identification of conflicts of interest - see "Circumstantial", above.

See also

References

  1. ↑ ad hominem: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from. Answers.com. URL accessed on 2009-11-08.
  2. ↑ Doug Walton (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach, p. 190 pp, Cambridge University Press.
  3. ↑ (2008) Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach, p. 170 pp, Cambridge University Press.
  4. ↑ Walton DN. Ad Hominem Arguments. University of Alabama Press, 1998. ISBN 0817309225, pp.18-21
  5. ↑ fallacyfiles.org (2007). Argumentum ad Hominem. fallacyfiles.org. URL accessed on September 10, 2007.
  6. ↑ Walton DN. Ad Hominem Arguments. University of Alabama Press, 1998. ISBN 0817309225, pp.18-21
  7. ↑ Ad Hominem. Plover.net. URL accessed on 2009-11-08.
  8. ↑ Logical Fallacy: Argumentum ad Hominem. Fallacyfiles.org. URL accessed on 2009-11-08.
  9. ↑ Logic Fallacies. The Autonomist. URL accessed on 2009-11-08.
  10. ↑ AdHominem. Drury.edu. URL accessed on 2009-11-08.
  11. ↑ Logical Fallacies» Ad Hominem (Personal Attack). Logicalfallacies.info. URL accessed on 2009-11-08.

Further reading

External links

Template:Red Herring FallacyTemplate:PropagandaTemplate:AbuseTemplate:Bullyingsimple:Ad hominemzh-yue:人身攻擊謬誤

Retrieved from "http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php?title=ad_hominem&oldid=47517"