Talk:Ad hominem/Archive 1
I had minor objections to the following as examples:
- An ad hominem attack might go "Congressman Lieberman is a Jew. Don't trust him to preside over the banking committee."
Cmon, we don't need even to mention anti-Semitism to illustrate the point.
- An ad hominem persuasion might be "How can you believe Johnson stole that money, he's a fellow Mason."
I confess I don't see how this is an example of argumentum ad hominem. It resembles the circumstantial variety, but it isn't an attempt to discredit one's opponent. Maybe there's something called "ad hominem persuasion" that the article should explicitly describe, but I'd need to see evidence of such a thing.
- A defensive argument could be "Of course you believe Anita Hill, you're a woman."
Again, let's not go there. ;-)
Sorry about the italics, Larry, it just seemed overitalicized to me. I see your point, however. Stormwriter
No problem of course, I appreciate someone who is concerned about overitalicization. ;-) --Larry Sanger
I was thinking of adding a couple of paragraphs about valid uses of ad hominem. Something like:
- Using the ad hominem form of argument is acceptable when it is impossible test the truth or falsity of some of an arguer's claims. In other words, the ad hominem attack is a logically valid form when "We can trust the arguer" is one of the necessary premisses of the argument being criticized.
- For example:
- "Prof. Bainbridge collected evidence in favor of theory X. However, Bainbridge has been proven to falsify his evidence in the past, so I don't think the evidence he's collected this time ought to lend much support to theory X."
- When it is merely impractical but not impossible to verify a particular premise of an argument like this, then it may be rational but not logical to accept an ad hominem argument.
What do you guys think? --Taak 22:58, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
- It's situational. How probable is it that Bainbridge has falsified evidence this time? Is it certain? Is it merely possible? What is at stake? etc.
- The statement (I've inserted quotes) without qualification is ad hominem. The rationality of rejecting his evidence is influenced by the following statements: "We don't have time (or ability) to check his evidence and there is a good chance he is lying this time." "Bainbridge has been proven to falsify his evidence in the past and we've got time, let's look carefully to see if he has falsified evidence in this case." etc.
- On a related topic, is there a pro hominem fallacy, where you accept someone's argument because of who they are, without reference or in spite of the facts? --M4-10 22:57, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
I've been thinking about ad hominem a bit and I'm not entirely satisfied with how it is presented. I'm not an expert in logic, and I know ad hominem is well documented. Therefore I'm not willing to make an edit at this time (I may later).
What is itching me is that I think ad hominem should only be applied to arguments, and not evidence. Evidence is an issue of credibility, and it is not a fallacy to reject evidence based on someone's lack of credibility if there is no way to prove it otherwise.
So: "John has frequently lied under oath, and therefore can't be trusted when he says he wasn't at the murder scene."
This would (under my definition) not be ad hominem because John has not given an argument, only (uncredible) evidence. Further, the speaker is making a full argument, with evidence ("John frequently lied under oath") leading to deductive reasoning ("therefore can't be trusted"). The above example may be a personal attack.
What is ad hominem then? Rejecting not evidence, but reason, based on the source of that reason.
"Ravens aren't pink because Bob says they are pink and Bob is blind."
Ravens aren't pink, but the reason they aren't pink is not because Bob is blind. The evidence is Bob's blindness, which can be true or false. But whether true or false, the argument is ad hominem fallacy.
The pro hominem fallacy can be illustrated by this example: "Ravens are black because Bob says they are black and Bob is very smart."
Again, the evidence ("Bob is very smart") may be true or false, but the reason cited is fallacious ("Ravens are black because Bob says they are black.") --M4-10 07:20, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
Looking closer at the article, it more or less says what I said but the examples aren't very good.
"George W. Bush is a Republican; therefore, the argument he just gave is wrong."
"Another example is the rejection of a politician's proposal for health care reform simply because the politician "has never been sick a day in his life"."
"I obviously don't need to reply to Jones's arguments about creationism; everyone knows that he's a convicted felon."
"You needn't bother to listen to the trial arguments of the tobacco companies; after all, they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests."
- All of these would be better served with actual arguments cited.
"You claim to be a fundamentalist Christian yet you support gay rights."
- This one isn't an argument, it's just a statement.
Having gone through this mental exercise (thanks for reading!) I guess I can rightfully make some edits after all. Any logic masters can feel free to correct or augment me.