Bronze-level articleArgumentum ad hominem

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Footnotes)
(this is a bronze-worthy article, anyone who disagrees is a wazzock)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{logicnav}}
+
{{bronze}}{{logicnav}}
 
The phrase '''''ad hominem''''' argument (often called an ''ad hominem'' attack) comes from the Latin "at the person". It also sometimes applies to any argument that centres on emotive (specifically irrelevant emotions) rather than rational or logical appeal.<ref>This was part of the definition used on the University Challenge question on the subject. And who are we to doubt the Almighty Paxman?</ref> It occurs when people who are unable to attack the argument itself resort to attacking the person making it.  As such arguments have ''nothing'' to do with the topic, they have ''no weight or validity'' against the argument. This is the case even if the attack is true;  two plus two still equals four even if the first person to point this out was the most morally reprehensible person to have ever lived.
 
The phrase '''''ad hominem''''' argument (often called an ''ad hominem'' attack) comes from the Latin "at the person". It also sometimes applies to any argument that centres on emotive (specifically irrelevant emotions) rather than rational or logical appeal.<ref>This was part of the definition used on the University Challenge question on the subject. And who are we to doubt the Almighty Paxman?</ref> It occurs when people who are unable to attack the argument itself resort to attacking the person making it.  As such arguments have ''nothing'' to do with the topic, they have ''no weight or validity'' against the argument. This is the case even if the attack is true;  two plus two still equals four even if the first person to point this out was the most morally reprehensible person to have ever lived.
  

Revision as of 20:39, 24 March 2012

Part of the series on

Logic and rhetoric

Icon logic.svg
Key articles
General logic
Bad logic

The phrase ad hominem argument (often called an ad hominem attack) comes from the Latin "at the person". It also sometimes applies to any argument that centres on emotive (specifically irrelevant emotions) rather than rational or logical appeal.[1] It occurs when people who are unable to attack the argument itself resort to attacking the person making it. As such arguments have nothing to do with the topic, they have no weight or validity against the argument. This is the case even if the attack is true; two plus two still equals four even if the first person to point this out was the most morally reprehensible person to have ever lived.

Contents

How ad hominem works

Ad hominem arguments work via the halo effect, a cognitive bias in which the perception of one trait is influenced by the perception of an unrelated trait, e.g. treating an attractive person as more intelligent or more honest. People tend to see others as tending to all good or tending to all bad. Thus, if you can attribute a bad trait to your opponent, others will tend to doubt the quality of your opponent's arguments.

Strict usage

An ad hominem argument has the basic form:

A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about A
Therefore X is false

Subtle uses

Often, ad hominem attacks are used subtly in order to influence the views of spectators. There are many forms of this, such as pointing out bad things they (The opponent) have done in the past in arguments about morality (They are not attacking the person's points about morality, they are attacking the person), or using exclamations (for example, "Jeez!") to imply that the person is incredibly slow at understanding your point. While ad hominem attacks are used mostly in arguments about philosophy or morals, it can also be used in other debates, such as when people supporting evolution are said to be "justifying genocide and mass suicide", though this could also be referred to as a straw man fallacy.

Blatant uses

Ad hominem attacks are hardly ever used plainly, and people who do are generally trolls who want to provoke people to fight. These are often partnered with not even responding to the person's post, using arguments that make no sense, and thus have never been heard of, then mocking their opponent when they fail to find a rebuttal, and many other such techniques.

Reduction ad hitlerum

A special variation of the ad hominem attack is Reductio ad Hitlerum, which also invokes Godwin's Law.

A makes claim X.
Hitler also claimed X.
Hitler was a very bad person.
Therefore X is false.

An implication of this argument is also that A is a very bad person, at the same level as Hitler.

False positives

Ad hominem attacks are strictly fallacious when the attack has little or no bearing on the argument at hand, for example, dismissing a female scientist's opinion on a subject because she is a woman would be a fallacious ad hominem argument - dismissing it on grounds of insufficient qualification or experience would not be, although it may fall into other fallacious categories and may constitute a Courtier's Reply. Similarly, pointing out someone's known track record on a subject would also not count. For instance, YouTube creationist VenomFangX has a past history of filing false DMCA claims, and it would not be an ad hominem attack to bring this up should he file another. It would be, however, if it was brought up to refute one of his YEC claims.

Calling someone an idiot when you have explained the evidence five times and they still refuse to address it, or provide counterexamples, is not an ad hominem attack, but rather a statement of fact. Similarly, tacking an insult onto the end of any argument might be bad form, but it doesn't automatically make it an ad hominem. It's only an ad hominem if you say the other person must be wrong because they are an idiot - not the other way round.

A criticism is also not an ad hominem argument if a person's merits are actually the topic of the argument. For example, "you're drunk," might be an ad hominem if used in an argument about epistemology - being impaired might stop you thinking straight, but it doesn't automatically make you wrong. On the other hand, however, it would be a quite persuasive argument if used to support the proposition that the person shouldn't drive as it has a direct relationship to the issue at hand. Also, pointing out a religious figure's moral failings or obvious lunacy is a valid response to the contention that that person's ideas of morality should inform our own.

See also

Footnotes

  1. This was part of the definition used on the University Challenge question on the subject. And who are we to doubt the Almighty Paxman?
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
In other languages
support