Talk:Argumentum ad hominem

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon logic.svg

This Logic related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


The person who posted this article probably is a malodorous pervert, second class :: it's wrong. CЯacke® 13:00, 26 June 2007 (CDT) (malodorous pervert first class)

Fuck you and the stud you rode in on.--PalMD-yada yada 14:28, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

THis article needs de-CPifying.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 09:58, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

I used to think I understood this, until I read this article. Could someone de-Terista this article? Also are there any circumstances which it is expectable? I thought a logical fallacy should never be used. - π 02:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering whether anyone else thought it might be funny to reference that one meme in the header:"I asked 100 women about the shampoo they were using; the number one answer was "What the hell are you doing in my shower?" Or is not not funny or applicable?--Asklepius (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Argumentum ad emotinum[edit]

The introduction says:

  • It also sometimes applies to any argument that centres on emotive (specifically irrelevant emotions) rather than rational or logical appeal."

I disagree. That's an example of a bad argument but it's not an ad hominem.--Weirdstuff (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

To add or not to add[edit]

I want to add the following, not sure if I should. Thoughts?

"=Here at RationWiki=

We use ad hominems all the time! Usually they are of the following form:

User1: I make Claim A, bringing in Source X
User2: Source X has been created by a confirmed crank, therefore it's not a valid claim

Technically, a person being a crank doesn't prove their point wrong. However, it's important to understand that the world of logic and meatspace are two different worlds. Logical fallacies are often useful heuristics. The fact that a person is a crank may not be proof that what they say is wrong, but it's good evidence that it's far more likely to be wrong. We pitiful humans do not have infinite time to address every little minute detail of every claim, so we need a way of dividing things into categories for making decisions. Every minute spent debunking bullshit is a minute we don't have for more important stuff, like, I don't know, something. Thus, the heuristics." CorruptUser (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Terrible example[edit]

I am removing the terrible example on this page specifically because neither premise 1 nor premise 3 is mentioned explicitly or implicitly in David Futrelle's reasoning. His first sentence "of course not" refers to his not being against "men having rights" and the rest of the excerpt list his reasons for opposing the Men's Rights Movement, without commenting at all on the truth value of the "claim that men's rights are neglected, mocked". Withoutaname (talk) 11:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Would debating a pseudoscientist and using his lack of qualification on a particular topic as a point an ad hominem or not?[edit]

For example:

PSEDUOSCIENCE PUSHER: Fluoridated drinking water is toxic!

PERSON WHO KNOWS SCIENICE: Do you have a degree in chemistry or medicine or any related degrees on this particular topic?

PSEDUOSCIENCE PUSHER: Hey! That's an ad hominem!!

BeardOfZeus (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

It would depend how you phrased it. But arguably it's better to go after sources and point out unreliability or poor methodology as needed. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Would the example above be an ad hominem? BeardOfZeus (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
More like credentialism, I believe. GeeJayK (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh thank you BeardOfZeus (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Argument over definition[edit]

Recent edits by @Jimitation shift the definition, away from being about a fallacious way to discredit an argument and towards simply being about discrediting a person. Sources used appear selected from search results for that purpose, including not-so-great article at a commercial company.

There's a basis for the view of older versions of the article. It's not the only view; Wikipedia's articleWikipedia provides some history, and that "Nowadays, except within specialized philosophical usages, the usage of the term ad hominem signifies a straight attack at the character and ethos of a person, in an attempt to refute their argument." It's a common view nowadays, and also fits the general theme and emphasis of RationalWiki's series of articles on logic and fallacies, tied to the kind of context in which that view of what ad hominem means arose.

But maybe some things have changed in online culture, compared to Wikipedia's 2001-sourced "nowadays" claim. There's a lot of writing online, of course, with endlessly conflicting perspectives, including endless arguments between people (where sometimes terms like ad hominem are simply used when they may seem to make a good impression, for tone policing etc.). A good source would be needed to be more definite on this. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)