Is ad hominem ever valid?

[rcronk]

I didn't know where to put a logic/debate/fallacy question so here it is in the "science" section.

I know that in a logical argument, the people bringing the argument to the table should be irrelevant and the argument or position itself should be able to stand on its own. But is there ever a time to question a person's motives or reliability and have that be a part of the argument? I looked at the wikipedia article on ad hominem and it talked about some exceptions being eyewitness reliability, etc. but I'm not sure how that fits (or even if it needs to at all) in a logical debate. Here's a quote from wikipedia:

Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a logical inference is independent of the person making the inference. However, ad hominem arguments are rarely presented as formal syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the domain of informal logic and the theory of evidence. The theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence.

So in a debate in the JREF forums, for example, if a user that has been shown in the past to be unreliable or heavily biased in one direction makes a statement, is it valid to bring up their character or past posts or is that just a shortcut when working through their facts logically and leaving them out of it completely really the right way to go? I've seen it go both ways on these forums and it seems to go much better without any ad hominem arguments so I'm leaning in that direction currently. I guess the people arguing the point are usually not witnesses or experts themselves, so maybe determining their reliability is not necessary.

I welcome your viewpoints on how ad hominem fits into debate (or not) because I know many of you are very good debaters and know these things much better than I do. Or is that just an appeal to authority? :) Thanks in advance for your help.

[Rasmus]

An d hominem as such is never a valid argument. Who delivers a fact has no bearing on the nature of the fact.

But life is not as simple. We can question whether something that is presented in argument is actually a fact. Often arguments depend on the severity of certain effects, and we can question that, too.

In cases like those, a known bias would be a reason to carefully examine someone's claims. But knowing about the bias alone won't be sufficient.

[rcronk]

An d hominem as such is never a valid argument. Who delivers a fact has no bearing on the nature of the fact.

But life is not as simple. We can question whether something that is presented in argument is actually a fact. Often arguments depend on the severity of certain effects, and we can question that, too.

In cases like those, a known bias would be a reason to carefully examine someone's claims. But knowing about the bias alone won't be sufficient.

Thanks. It seems like it comes down to the chain of custody - where did the evidence or expertise come from originally, how reliable is that source, and who has touched/manipulated it since that moment. So if we distrust someone in that chain who is bringing facts or expertise to the table, then pointing out that they may be unreliable could be relevant but it isn't the argument itself. It could cause people to more carefully examine the chain of custody or get second and third opinions about the expertise being claimed though, right?

ETA: So, when someone cites a source, they take themselves out of that chain of custody and out of the line of ad hominem fire?

If that's true, then would the opposite of that be an appeal to authority? Trusting someone in that chain of custody without scrutinizing the evidence or expertise?

[robinson]

Interesting point. I see both occurring, with a curious bias mixed in.

[El Greco]

It would be nice if some discussions were made without poster names at all. OTOH, I have often replied to an argument that seemed valid only to regret it later because the poster was ridiculous and his purpose was not to discuss but to cause havoc.

Ad hominem attacks are a filthy tactic with well-meaning posters, but they save you a lot of time with malevolent idiots.

[KingMerv00]

Ad hominem attacks are never a valid way to win an argument but some people deserve them and they sure can make you feel better.

[rcronk]

Interesting point. I see both occurring, with a curious bias mixed in.

I've found very few unbiased sources unfortunately. But if I am only skeptical of the ones I think are biased, then I can get bit on the ones I assume are trustworthy and unbiased. So on that count, I think it's better to stay away from specifically directed ad hominem and be skeptical of all evidence and expertise.

It would be nice if some discussions were made without poster names at all. OTOH, I have often replied to an argument that seemed valid only to regret it later because the poster was ridiculous and his purpose was not to discuss but to cause havoc.

Ad hominem attacks are a filthy tactic with well-meaning posters, but they save you a lot of time with malevolent idiots.

Yes, I think ad hominem is brought up as a time saver. That doesn't make it right, but it does seem valid if you know someone has posted absolute drivel in the past - but what if they've changed?

And again, I guess one can eliminate the need for ad hominem attacks by going around the subject of the attack directly to the original source or by getting many second and third opinions to check experts. Any other comments?

[rcronk]

Ad hominem attacks are never a valid way to win an argument but some people deserve them and they sure can make you feel better.

I know what you mean about them being satisfying. :) So ad hominem attacks are never a way to win an argument, but can they be used to challenge the evidence chain or expertise? If so, what's valid and what's not? Where's the line?

[madurobob]

Ad hominem attacks are never a valid way to win an argument but some people deserve them and they sure can make you feel better.

Well, you're the King, so you must be right.

[Rasmus]

Thanks. It seems like it comes down to the chain of custody - where did the evidence or expertise come from originally, how reliable is that source, and who has touched/manipulated it since that moment. So if we distrust someone in that chain who is bringing facts or expertise to the table, then pointing out that they may be unreliable could be relevant but it isn't the argument itself.

Yes. A valid reply to such an argument might be: "I agree that you argument is sound, but I doubt your premises."

It could cause people to more carefully examine the chain of custody or get second and third opinions about the expertise being claimed though, right?

Right.

ETA: So, when someone cites a source, they take themselves out of that chain of custody and out of the line of ad hominem fire?

Not necessarily. A poster might have a history of citing dubious sources. If a poster like pointed towards a source I might feel very much inclined to not outright trust the source.

If that's true, then would the opposite of that be an appeal to authority? Trusting someone in that chain of custody without scrutinizing the evidence or expertise?

Not quiet. It would definitely be an appeal to authority if you were asked to trust an argument because it was made by so-and-so rather than someone else.

But if so-and-so is an authority in the filed under discussion then what he says does have some weight. But they could still be wrong, regardless of their name.

Basicially, as long as you recognize that someone could still be right (or wrong) despite of who they are, you should be safe from committing either fallacy.

[dudalb]

Ad hominem attacks are never a valid way to win an argument but some people deserve them and they sure can make you feel better.

Exactly.Once in a while you have to call an idiot an idiot.

[El Greco]

Yes, I think ad hominem is brought up as a time saver. That doesn't make it right, but it does seem valid if you know someone has posted absolute drivel in the past - but what if they've changed?

Well, bad luck then. I won't miss them, they won't miss me. There are people "in real life" to whom I've dedicated much less time than what I'd like. It may be unfair, but I don't have time to check twice and thrice on each person to see whether they've changed or not. And frankly, no one loses from such an attitude. Not me, not the other persons and certainly not the discussion. We live in the age of pluralism where there are tons of discussions and lots of interlocutors. Saving time is much more important than missing a debate with a possibly reformed wicked person.

[rcronk]

Thanks for all of the posts. It looks like one can completely avoid ad hominem attacks during the argument itself (unless it feels good, of course :)) and just challenge premises or logical fallacies in their argument. It's more work than dismissing them, but it keeps the argument on high ground.

So, should an ad hominem argument be avoided when it comes to challenging firsthand witnesses or experts? If so, how. If not, what's the best way to challenge witnesses or experts who we think may be in question?

[sol invictus]

Well, what do you think of this:

in a JREF thread, a certain creationist poster claimed repeatedly that multiple selection pressures "profoundly slow" evolution. Furthermore he claimed to have evidence for that from a computer model. Of course the opposite is true, and (after some fruitless argument) I offered to bet him $10,000, to be settled by the computer model in question. He declined.

I consider that a very effective and valid argument and/or evidence against his position, but I suppose it is technically ad hominem.

[kmortis]

Wow...what a bunch of wankers.






























:p

[Marquis de Carabas]

Wow...what a bunch of wankers.
That is just an insult, not an ad hom. Since you're too much of a wanker to tell the difference, they must not be wankers.

[rcronk]

Well, what do you think of this:

in a JREF thread, a certain creationist poster claimed repeatedly that multiple selection pressures "profoundly slow" evolution. Furthermore he claimed to have evidence for that from a computer model. Of course the opposite is true, and (after some fruitless argument) I offered to bet him $10,000, to be settled by the computer model in question. He declined.

I consider that a very effective and valid argument and/or evidence against his position, but I suppose it is technically ad hominem.

Has that thread reached 10,000 posts yet? From what I saw on that thread, it had a high signal to ad hominem attack ratio and it was very annoying. It really got in the way of clear debate unfortunately.

I don't know if his declining to bet would technically be an ad hominem attack. What kind of fallacy would it be to assume that he's bluffing because he doesn't take a bet?

[rcronk]

That is just an insult, not an ad hom. Since you're too much of a wanker to tell the difference, they must not be wankers.

lol - how do I insert that laughing dog?

[Marquis de Carabas]

lol - how do I insert that laughing dog?
:dl:

[rcronk]

Thanks!

:dl:

[KingMerv00]

I know what you mean about them being satisfying. :) So ad hominem attacks are never a way to win an argument, but can they be used to challenge the evidence chain or expertise? If so, what's valid and what's not? Where's the line?

Challenging expertise isn't really all that helpful. If a high school drop out builds a cold fusion reactor and it works, you can't prove him wrong by bringing up his educational history.

Appealing to authority can be useful but only in the broadest sense. If I have to get a kidney transplant, I go to a doctor, not a gardner. There is no guarantee the doctor knows more but it is a safe bet.

Expertise is something to consider when weighing opinions on topics we know nothing about and do not have the time to research ourselves.

[KingMerv00]

Exactly.Once in a while you have to call an idiot an idiot.

I do this way too often but...*points at sig*.

[sol invictus]

Has that thread reached 10,000 posts yet? From what I saw on that thread, it had a high signal to ad hominem attack ratio and it was very annoying. It really got in the way of clear debate unfortunately.

Yeah - that thread doesn't have anything to do with debate.

I don't know if his declining to bet would technically be an ad hominem attack. What kind of fallacy would it be to assume that he's bluffing because he doesn't take a bet?

I didn't mean his declining, I meant my offering in the first place, and then using the fact that he declined as an argument. I mean, his not accepting the bet is a personal decision that might have little to do with the actual issue, so it is a kind of ad hom.

[Tricky]

To answer the original question, it depends on the situation. In a debate, ad hominems are virtually always logical fallacies. In a courtroom, however, they are perfectly acceptable. In fact, the whole concept of "character witnesses" are nothing but pro hominems and ad hominems. If the question is, "Is this person capable of doing such a thing?" the the answer must be evidence for and against. True, this is more than just insults, but it certainly may have nothing to do with the question of the crime itself. But this also overlaps with the logical fallacy of "poisoning the well", which is also a perfectly legitimate legal technique.

But even here, the phrase "You are an idiot" is sometimes acceptible if you follow it with "because..."

[Silentknight]

As it is often said, there's a difference between insulting someone and describing them accurately. I think the unofficial rule around here is that it's technically not ad hominem if you call a person an idiot or a moron, and then go on to enumerate legitimate reasons why you believe they have less credibility. (The technical definition of "idiot" originated as "person lacking professional skill" though in modern psychology it refers to one with severe mental retardation.) If however you were to just tell someone that, "You suck [lower anatomical extremities]," and leave it at that, then it would certainly be ad hominem and therefore unacceptable.

[CapelDodger]

As it is often said, there's a difference between insulting someone and describing them accurately.

A good insult does both, and is recognised as doing so by the audience you're playing to. A bad insult is contemptible. Neither has anything to do with ad hominem argument, which is always invalid. Anyone who can't understand that is a dickhead, m'kay? :) (I just couldn't resist that.)

I think the unofficial rule around here is that it's technically not ad hominem if you call a person an idiot or a moron, and then go on to enumerate legitimate reasons why you believe they have less credibility. (The technical definition of "idiot" originated as "person lacking professional skill" though in modern psychology it refers to one with severe mental retardation.)

Technically, an idiot can't type, and a moron can't even cut-and-paste.

If however you were to just tell someone that, "You suck [lower anatomical extremities]," and leave it at that, then it would certainly be ad hominem and therefore unacceptable.

It's unacceptable, but it isn't ad hominem. It's just toilet-talk, and by convention it concedes the argument. It does where I come from, anyway.

[ravdin]

Ad hominem statements aren't necessarily wrong in and of themselves, but they are weak. If your argument is a good one, then you won't need to rely on ad hominem statements to back it up. If the best support for your argument you can come up with is ad hominem, then you should probably examine your premises.

[CapelDodger]

To answer the original question, it depends on the situation. In a debate, ad hominems are virtually always logical fallacies.

Ad hominem is always a logical fallacy.

In a courtroom, however, they are perfectly acceptable.

In a courtroom, logic has a fight on its hands.

In fact, the whole concept of "character witnesses" are nothing but pro hominems and ad hominems. If the question is, "Is this person capable of doing such a thing?" the the answer must be evidence for and against. True, this is more than just insults, but it certainly may have nothing to do with the question of the crime itself. But this also overlaps with the logical fallacy of "poisoning the well", which is also a perfectly legitimate legal technique.

This is all about playing to an audience, not about logic. An argument involves evidence and logic - no audience. When the evidence isn't conclusive you can only present your opinion of the balance of the evidence.

But even here, the phrase "You are an idiot" is sometimes acceptible if you follow it with "because..."

Some arguments simply demand that response, in the heat of the moment :).

[Tricky]

Ad hominem is always a logical fallacy.

In a courtroom, logic has a fight on its hands.

This is all about playing to an audience, not about logic. An argument involves evidence and logic - no audience. When the evidence isn't conclusive you can only present your opinion of the balance of the evidence.

Some arguments simply demand that response, in the heat of the moment :).
Quite correct on all points, but the question wasn't "is ad hominem ever logical?" it was "is ad hominem ever valid?" It is valid, if illogical, in certain circumstances. Flame wars come to mind, you pedantic mongrel taffy-loving... erm... something that is spelled without vowels. Maybe Phllygm.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell

[CapelDodger]

Ad hominem statements aren't necessarily wrong in and of themselves, but they are weak. If your argument is a good one, then you won't need to rely on ad hominem statements to back it up. If the best support for your argument you can come up with is ad hominem, then you should probably examine your premises.

Absolutely. If you can't press your argument home because it meets valid objections, you have to question it. If it doesn't actually stand up you've learnt something, which is always good. If nothing else, you're better prepared next time the subject is broached.

There is, of course, a tipping-point known as "exasperation" when some idiot simply won't give up on invalid objections (often ad hominem in nature), at which point you might as well vent your frustration by explaining why they and their entire genetic clade are lacking in so many ways. Better to let it out than bottle it up :).

[CapelDodger]

Quite correct on all points, but the question wasn't "is ad hominem ever logical?" it was "is ad hominem ever valid?" It is valid, if illogical, in certain circumstances. Flame wars come to mind, you pedantic mongrel taffy-loving... erm... something that is spelled without vowels. Maybe Phllygm.

"Dyw", maybe?

(That's "god" in Welsh, so probably not . And I'm not Welsh, I just live here because property prices were a joke twenty years ago. Pedant, mongrel ... out and proud :)).

I wouldn't last a day in a flame war. I appreciate the skill, but I just can't hack it.

[Tricky]

I wouldn't last a day in a flame war. I appreciate the skill, but I just can't hack it.
Oh, you'd do okay. After all, you are the Dyw of mongrel pedants.:D

[CapelDodger]

What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell


The man put it very well. Evidence you find innately comforting calls for the closest examination.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Evidence you find innately comforting calls for the closest examination.

Succinct interpretation.

Well done! :)

[SomeGuy]

A good insult does both, and is recognised as doing so by the audience you're playing to. A bad insult is contemptible. Neither has anything to do with ad hominem argument, which is always invalid. Anyone who can't understand that is a dickhead, m'kay? :) (I just couldn't resist that.)



I thought that was an example of poisoning the well, not of ad hominem.

[Dave Rogers]

To answer the original question, it depends on the situation. In a debate, ad hominems are virtually always logical fallacies. In a courtroom, however, they are perfectly acceptable.

I think the reason for that is that the nature of the argument being advanced in a courtroom is typically very different to the type of argument found here. Consider these two hypothetical examples:

1. (JREF)
Poster 1: It's clear to me that Steven Jones's microsphere analysis shows elements that could only have possibly been present due to thermate.
Poster 2: Steven Jones is a well known kook, so you're wrong.

2. (Courtroom)
Witness: I clearly saw the man who robbed my shop, and despite the balaclava covering the bottom half of his face I'm certain it was the defendant.
Counsel: The defendant is Jewish, and you're the editor of the newsletter of a local anti-semitic organisation, so your testimony should be disregarded.

The first example is clearly an ad hominem fallacy, because the character of the person advancing the argument is irrelevant to the content of the argument. In the second example, the witness is in effect appealing to his own authority, and the attack on his motives is therefore crucial to the evaluation of his honesty. Therefore, the ad hominem in this case isn't a fallacy.

We have a regular poster on the CT forum who claims that his expertise in marine architecture makes him an authority on the WTC collapses. Addressing that assertion isn't, therefore, an ad hominem fallacy, but a legitimate part of evaluating his claims, even though it's an approach that addresses the arguer rather than the argument. As far as I can see, though, that's about the only circumstance where ad hominem isn't fallacious.

Dave

[Nogbad]

An Ad Hominen tends to raise alarm bells within me with regards the strength of the attacker's argument. A strong logical counter to a proposition by another poster requires only a deconstruction of the original statement and indication where there are flaws. A starting point that the OP is a notorious drunk, for example, and therefore cannot possibly be right is clearly illogical - many ad hominems are more subtle than this but they follow the same non sequitur.

After this has been completed one can then proceed to say whether one thinks the OP is a stranger to veracity or, indeed, a complete qunt - but this is an optional extra and should not form part of the main argument which should be able to stand alone.

[JoeEllison]

Ad Hominem is often confused for simple insult. The two things aren't the same thing. Insulting someone is fun. :) An Ad Hominem argument is one that bases the argument on the insult, in an illogical way.

For instance, if you claim that Michael Jordan is the best basketball player ever, I could counter that he has a gambling problem and in a jerk to his fans. In that case, I've made the logical fallacy, because his personal flaws have little or nothing to do with his on-court skills. On the other hand, if I outline his negative impacts to the game, and show how other players have achievements that make them more deserving of the top spot, and then add that he's a jerk, then I've made a good argument and threw in an insult for fun, and the insult doesn't invalidate my argument.

[Tricky]

I think the reason for that is that the nature of the argument being advanced in a courtroom is typically very different to the type of argument found here. Consider these two hypothetical examples:

1. (JREF)
Poster 1: It's clear to me that Steven Jones's microsphere analysis shows elements that could only have possibly been present due to thermate.
Poster 2: Steven Jones is a well known kook, so you're wrong.

2. (Courtroom)
Witness: I clearly saw the man who robbed my shop, and despite the balaclava covering the bottom half of his face I'm certain it was the defendant.
Counsel: The defendant is Jewish, and you're the editor of the newsletter of a local anti-semitic organisation, so your testimony should be disregarded.

The first example is clearly an ad hominem fallacy, because the character of the person advancing the argument is irrelevant to the content of the argument. In the second example, the witness is in effect appealing to his own authority, and the attack on his motives is therefore crucial to the evaluation of his honesty. Therefore, the ad hominem in this case isn't a fallacy.
Again, I don't disagree. Perhaps I'm only making a semantic argument on the basis of the thread title. "Ever" covers a lot of bases. Truly, the whole concept of "character witnesses" is a logical fallacy. It doesn't matter how good or how bad the person was in the past. Strictly speaking, that has no logical bearing on the crime under discussion. Yet past behavior is frequently used in court cases, especially in the sentencing phase. It is not exactly logical, but I can make a strong argument that it is justified.

No, the boards here are not a court. I realize that.

We have a regular poster on the CT forum who claims that his expertise in marine architecture makes him an authority on the WTC collapses. Addressing that assertion isn't, therefore, an ad hominem fallacy, but a legitimate part of evaluating his claims, even though it's an approach that addresses the arguer rather than the argument. As far as I can see, though, that's about the only circumstance where ad hominem isn't fallacious.
That is clearly exposing a false appeal to authority rather than an ad hom, in my opinion (as always).

[Mobyseven]

Quite correct on all points, but the question wasn't "is ad hominem ever logical?" it was "is ad hominem ever valid?" It is valid, if illogical, in certain circumstances. Flame wars come to mind, you pedantic mongrel taffy-loving... erm... something that is spelled without vowels. Maybe Phllygm.

It depends on what you mean by 'valid' though. Everytime I see the word valid used in this sort of context (discussing arguments, fallacies, etc.), I immediately think of its meaning in formal logic. In that sense, ad hominem is never valid, as it has the form, "P asserts Q; There is something undesirable about P; Therefore not Q."

Having said that, I'd still say that ad hominem arguments are never valid, in any sense of the word - the whole point of an ad hominem is to attack the person asserting the proposition and not the proposition itself. In a situation where it would be reasonable to call into question the character, actions or motives of the person asserting the proposition the argument is no longer ad hominem, instead it turns into an argument with a series of commonly understood, but hidden, premises.

[Beerina]

An d hominem as such is never a valid argument. Who delivers a fact has no bearing on the nature of the fact.

But life is not as simple. We can question whether something that is presented in argument is actually a fact. Often arguments depend on the severity of certain effects, and we can question that, too.

In cases like those, a known bias would be a reason to carefully examine someone's claims. But knowing about the bias alone won't be sufficient.

In politics, at least, one should examine the arguer, not just the argument, to see what they might really be up to.

Many times politicians argue one stance, but the real reason is hidden, and deliberately so because it would be considered unwise, if not downright unethical.

Ultimately, though, politics is an evolutionary process, where the narratives (the political streams of thought) become essentially memes that reproduce when they win, and die off when they lose. This has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of the statments, much less their practical effectiveness. (There are no "control groups" to see what would have happened without said governmental law or program.)

The overriding drive is "if it sounds good to the masses", then it reproduces. If a modified, slightly better version by an opponent comes along, then that one wins and the old one starts fading away.

[Mister Agenda]

Well, what do you think of this:

in a JREF thread, a certain creationist poster claimed repeatedly that multiple selection pressures "profoundly slow" evolution. Furthermore he claimed to have evidence for that from a computer model. Of course the opposite is true, and (after some fruitless argument) I offered to bet him $10,000, to be settled by the computer model in question. He declined.

I consider that a very effective and valid argument and/or evidence against his position, but I suppose it is technically ad hominem.

Isn't it true that multiple selection pressures CAN slow evolution, or at least act to preserve successful phenotypes when the environment is relatively stable? For example, smaller mice might be selected for during the dry season and larger mice during the wet season, but medium mice are the most common because the selection pressures 'average out'. For one pressure to 'win out' it must become more prevalent or the other pressure less so, otherwise the overall effect is to preserve the status quo.

[Nogbad]

Isn't it true that multiple selection pressures CAN slow evolution, or at least act to preserve successful phenotypes when the environment is relatively stable? For example, smaller mice might be selected for during the dry season and larger mice during the wet season, but medium mice are the most common because the selection pressures 'average out'. For one pressure to 'win out' it must become more prevalent or the other pressure less so, otherwise the overall effect is to preserve the status quo.

FFS! don't start that again. :D

[rcronk]

Thanks everyone for your comments. The issue is becoming more clear to me.

Let me give one more example to see if this is an ad hominem or not and if it is logical or appropriate:

Witness X to the WTC 7 collapse claims he heard Jews talking about planting bombs in WTC 7 before the collapse. Witness X runs an anti-Semite website that blames Jews for everything wrong in the world. Therefore X's testimony can be discounted or ignored.

Is that valid logic? Or is this example about evidence gathering and evaluation rather than logic and argument?

[Tanstaafl]

Thanks everyone for your comments. The issue is becoming more clear to me.

Let me give one more example to see if this is an ad hominem or not and if it is logical or appropriate:

Witness X to the WTC 7 collapse claims he heard Jews talking about planting bombs in WTC 7 before the collapse. Witness X runs an anti-Semite website that blames Jews for everything wrong in the world. Therefore X's testimony can be discounted or ignored.

Is that valid logic? Or is this example about evidence gathering and evaluation rather than logic and argument?


I think it can be both a reasonable conclusion, and a logical fallacy all at the same time.

[Hokulele]

Thanks everyone for your comments. The issue is becoming more clear to me.

Let me give one more example to see if this is an ad hominem or not and if it is logical or appropriate:

Witness X to the WTC 7 collapse claims he heard Jews talking about planting bombs in WTC 7 before the collapse. Witness X runs an anti-Semite website that blames Jews for everything wrong in the world. Therefore X's testimony can be discounted or ignored.

Is that valid logic? Or is this example about evidence gathering and evaluation rather than logic and argument?


I would say that the lack of support for his claim would indicate that it can be discounted but not necessarily ignored. The website could be used as a means to understand why Witness X finds this compelling evidence, but does not affect the evidence itself. Without any corroborating sources, this would fall to the level of anecdote, not evidence.

[rcronk]

I think it can be both a reasonable conclusion, and a logical fallacy all at the same time.

Hmm - is it valid in an argument to reject X's testimony? I guess both sides of the argument would have to agree to reject the testimony, which may be unlikely. Is my example in my last post in fact an ad hominem attack? If not, what is it? If so, is it a logical fallacy? Or do we accept all evidence from all sources and not weigh their reliability?

[rcronk]

I would say that the lack of support for his claim would indicate that it can be discounted but not necessarily ignored. The website could be used as a means to understand why Witness X finds this compelling evidence, but does not affect the evidence itself. Without any corroborating sources, this would fall to the level of anecdote, not evidence.

Good points. Should his website be ignored completely then? This would basically make his "evidence" have the same weight as a fireman standing next to him with a different story, wouldn't it? Is there any room for the website decreasing the value or weight of the evidence? If so, is that ad hominem?

Thanks all for walking me through this.

[Hokulele]

Good points. Should his website be ignored completely then? This would basically make his "evidence" have the same weight as a fireman standing next to him with a different story, wouldn't it? Is there any room for the website decreasing the value or weight of the evidence? If so, is that ad hominem?

Thanks all for walking me through this.


Logically, if the only two pieces of evidence were the testimony of Witness X and a fireman, then they would have the same weight. If the testimony revolved around firefighting techniques, then the fireman's opinion would carry more weight. As mentioned previously, in a court case the question of character would definitely be introduced, and would most likely sway the jury. Appeals to emotion and ad hominems may not be a logical form of argument, but they are often effective. So in that sense, if advertising or politics is your arena, these techniques are valid.

[CapelDodger]

Thanks everyone for your comments. The issue is becoming more clear to me.

Let me give one more example to see if this is an ad hominem or not and if it is logical or appropriate:

Witness X to the WTC 7 collapse claims he heard Jews talking about planting bombs in WTC 7 before the collapse. Witness X runs an anti-Semite website that blames Jews for everything wrong in the world. Therefore X's testimony can be discounted or ignored.

Is that valid logic? Or is this example about evidence gathering and evaluation rather than logic and argument?

I see it as a judgement call - evaluation of evidence rather than strict logic. Evidence presented by an irrational witness carries little or no weight. This (hypothetical) witness's rationality is clearly questionable on the basis of better evidence - the existence of his website, which you can check for yourself.

[CapelDodger]

An Ad Hominen tends to raise alarm bells within me with regards the strength of the attacker's argument. A strong logical counter to a proposition by another poster requires only a deconstruction of the original statement and indication where there are flaws. A starting point that the OP is a notorious drunk, for example, and therefore cannot possibly be right is clearly illogical - many ad hominems are more subtle than this but they follow the same non sequitur.

After this has been completed one can then proceed to say whether one thinks the OP is a stranger to veracity or, indeed, a complete qunt - but this is an optional extra and should not form part of the main argument which should be able to stand alone.

I have no argument with any of that :).

I would just add that when someone resorts to insult before establishing there case, it's good evidence that your argument is getting to them and they can't deal with the fact. It's a sort of "fight or flight" response, and later they'll remember only "well, didn't I put them down!" and forget the disturbing undermining of their conviction.

The best response, I find, is to remain calm and keep pressing your point. That can really drive people wild. I may have learnt that from my mother, who can wield icy politeness as a weapon. (My father taught me how to throw a straight right-jab from the shoulder, with my body behind it. They're both good. :))

My mother has a story of her father politely asking a women in a cinema to be quiet. "I've never been so insulted in my life!", she said. "Oh, you must have been", replied my grandfather. Squelch.

[JoeEllison]

Thanks everyone for your comments. The issue is becoming more clear to me.

Let me give one more example to see if this is an ad hominem or not and if it is logical or appropriate:

Witness X to the WTC 7 collapse claims he heard Jews talking about planting bombs in WTC 7 before the collapse. Witness X runs an anti-Semite website that blames Jews for everything wrong in the world. Therefore X's testimony can be discounted or ignored.

Is that valid logic? Or is this example about evidence gathering and evaluation rather than logic and argument?
Valid logic? Maybe not in the strictest sense of the word "logic". If you say that his claim is wrong because he is saying it, and then reject it even in the face of supporting evidence, that is a clear logical fallacy. If your thinking is more along the lines of not trusting a source that has proven to be unreliable in the past, that's not so clear cut.

However, from a practical standpoint, it would be very reasonable to confirm that claim through another, less obviously biased source.

[CapelDodger]

I would say that the lack of support for his claim would indicate that it can be discounted but not necessarily ignored. The website could be used as a means to understand why Witness X finds this compelling evidence, but does not affect the evidence itself. Without any corroborating sources, this would fall to the level of anecdote, not evidence.

Pushing rcronk's hypothetical way too far, the website gives credence to the possibility that the witness has either invented what he heard (in an effort to get across a message he believes in and regards as of crucial importance); or is irrational enough to have persuaded himself that he heard the conversation when in fact they're an after-the-fact product of his psychosis.

Had he reported the conversation before the fact - and why wouldn't he? He's clearly no slave to political correctness, after all - that would be a somewhat different matter.

The existence of the website is evidence that rises above the anecdotal. He's out and he's proud. Only a fool would ignore that fact.

(The relevance of this discussion to the AGW debate has not escaped me, but I'm not going to go there :). Far too contentious. Hypotheticals are much safer ground.)

[badnewsBH]

People have already explained this better than I will, but what the heck? I'll give it a go. :)

I think you commit an ad hominem fallacy if you dismiss a person's argument *solely* on the basis that there's "something wrong" with him. You attack his character, his personality, his parentage, etc., then claim that that's sufficient reason to disbelieve his claims. This is invalid, because a person could be a liar, a hypocrite, a bigot, ad nauseam, and still make a valid point.

OTOH, you can question a person's motives for holding a certain position, and make a counterclaim about the evidence he presents. The thread about our favourite annoying creationist is a good example. His claims aren't incorrect because of any personality flaws he may possess (and I'll leave you to judge how many he may have...), and it would be fallacious to say so. It is, however, perfectly valid to doubt his claims about evolution because he has a clear agenda on the subject, *and* because of the many pieces of evidence that refute his claims (and for which he has no valid answer, only "you evolutionists still don't understand how sorting algorithms and mathematics work").

[rcronk]

Ok - so it seems that there's some disagreement about whether witness X having a website that indicates he has a strong bias that is related to his testimony affects the strength of his testimony. Perhaps this is because of the difference between pure logic and people's tendency to try to figure out people's biases as they interact with them. I guess it's ok to think witness X is a nutjob while still considering his testimony and using other testimony and evidence to corroborate or invalidate his testimony.

And hey - feel free to bring in non-hypotheticals into this discussion - even heated ones - because that's where ad hominem comes into play isn't it? In the heat of frustration. It might actually be more instructive to take examples from the forums here since that's where I'll be using this new knowledge.

[CapelDodger]

People have already explained this better than I will, but what the heck? I'll give it a go. :)

Why not? Learn by doing.

Welcome (and great handle) :).

I think you commit an ad hominem fallacy if you dismiss a person's argument *solely* on the basis that there's "something wrong" with him. You attack his character, his personality, his parentage, etc., then claim that that's sufficient reason to disbelieve his claims. This is invalid, because a person could be a liar, a hypocrite, a bigot, ad nauseam, and still make a valid point.

OTOH, you can question a person's motives for holding a certain position, and make a counterclaim about the evidence he presents. The thread about our favourite annoying creationist is a good example. His claims aren't incorrect because of any personality flaws he may possess (and I'll leave you to judge how many he may have...) ...

They are legion ...

... and it would be fallacious to say so. It is, however, perfectly valid to doubt his claims about evolution because he has a clear agenda on the subject, *and* because of the many pieces of evidence that refute his claims (and for which he has no valid answer, only "you evolutionists still don't understand how sorting algorithms and mathematics work").

Quite right. The bad-mouthing comes from the k-man (I'm right, yeah?) with his " :rolleyes: Your intellectual poverty is the problem", when he's got his head firmly stuffed in a narrow crack that necessarily leaves his ears closed. Were he less obsessed and more sensible he'd have leant over slightly less far and be sucking his own ...

Sorry, rambled off there. Where was I? Oh yes, Welcome, cuz. So far you're with us. Some way up the line ... well, who can tell.

(Watch out for Jimbo, he doesn't load for duck-shooting, know what I mean?)

[CapelDodger]

Ok - so it seems that there's some disagreement about whether witness X having a website that indicates he has a strong bias that is related to his testimony affects the strength of his testimony. Perhaps this is because of the difference between pure logic and people's tendency to try to figure out people's biases as they interact with them. I guess it's ok to think witness X is a nutjob while still considering his testimony and using other testimony and evidence to corroborate or invalidate his testimony.

Pure logic can only be applied to definite facts and valid inferences that can be drawn from them - Mobyseven is definitely The Man for that end of things. It applies in science, mathematics, any situations where propositions can have an absolute truth-factor.

What we're mostly faced with in life (let alone the courtroom or politics), is not nearly so clear-cut, of course. Evidence is rarely absolute, it has to be judged.

And hey - feel free to bring in non-hypotheticals into this discussion - even heated ones - because that's where ad hominem comes into play isn't it? In the heat of frustration. It might actually be more instructive to take examples from the forums here since that's where I'll be using this new knowledge.

badnewsBH bit into that apple before I fell to temptation. As long as we don't mention the individual involved by name we probably won't draw him in. Better to talk about him than with him.

[Mobyseven]

Thanks everyone for your comments. The issue is becoming more clear to me.

Let me give one more example to see if this is an ad hominem or not and if it is logical or appropriate:

Witness X to the WTC 7 collapse claims he heard Jews talking about planting bombs in WTC 7 before the collapse. Witness X runs an anti-Semite website that blames Jews for everything wrong in the world. Therefore X's testimony can be discounted or ignored.

Is that valid logic? Or is this example about evidence gathering and evaluation rather than logic and argument?

This is what I'm talking about when I say that there can be hidden premises involved when the character of a person is legitimately questioned. To explain what I mean I'll use your idea as an example.

Originally what is said is:

X claims he heard Jews talk about planting bombs in WTC7.
X is a known anti-semite.
Therefore, X's testimony should be ignored.

This seems reasonable on the face of it, but left as it is it is an ad hominem argument. There are a number of hidden premises, however, that are generally understood by the audience. Explicitly stating these can flesh out the argument and show why it isn't ad hominem:

X claims he heard Jews talk about planting bombs in WTC7.
X is a known anti-semite.
If someone is an anti-semite, any claims they make regarding Jews should not be accepted without further corroborating evidence.
There is no evidence that corroborates X's claim.
Therefore, X's testimony should be ignored.

Stated as such it becomes clear that the reason the claim should be ignored is not directly because X is anti-semitic, but instead because there is no evidence to support X's claims. Really, there should be evidence for X's claim regardless of the claim and whether or not he is anti-semitic, but this is the real world and some people are more trustworthy than others.

[uruk]

I didn't know where to put a logic/debate/fallacy question so here it is in the "science" section.

I know that in a logical argument, the people bringing the argument to the table should be irrelevant and the argument or position itself should be able to stand on its own. But is there ever a time to question a person's motives or reliability and have that be a part of the argument? I looked at the wikipedia article on ad hominem and it talked about some exceptions being eyewitness reliability, etc. but I'm not sure how that fits (or even if it needs to at all) in a logical debate. Here's a quote from wikipedia:

What if the debate is about the person's motives or reliability?

[Mobyseven]

Pure logic can only be applied to definite facts and valid inferences that can be drawn from them - Mobyseven is definitely The Man for that end of things. It applies in science, mathematics, any situations where propositions can have an absolute truth-factor.

What we're mostly faced with in life (let alone the courtroom or politics), is not nearly so clear-cut, of course. Evidence is rarely absolute, it has to be judged.

Even in Real LifeTM (even the courtroom or politics), most propositions will have absolute truth-values. The defendant is guilty or not guilty, the proposed economic plan will be good for the economy or not good for the economy. There are two issues present in real life scenarios, of course.

The first is that sometimes the criteria for 'true' or 'false' can be debated - in the economic plan example, some might say the plan is 'good' so long as it prevents a recession or depression, others might argue that for it to be 'good' it should stimulate growth and usher in a new golden age. Once criteria have been decided, however, the proposition will have a definite truth-value.

The second issue is that even though a proposition has a definite truth value, we may not know what that truth value is. In the case of the economic plan that is because the statement is future-dependant: We will know in x years time whether or not this plan was good, but we necessarily cannot know now. It still has a definite truth-value, but we cannot know it at the present time. In the courtroom example it may be because we just don't have enough evidence to obtain the truth - the evidence may point to the defendant as being guilty when further evidence would reveal the truth to be otherwise, and vice-versa.

My point was that ad hominem is always a fallacious argument, but that in some situations an argument that superficially appears to be ad hominem is actually nothing of the sort. I'm not saying that things are clear cut or that evidence should speak for itself - on the contrary I'm pointing out a method by which we can sort the wheat from the chaff to better obtain the true answer.

[CapelDodger]

Even in Real LifeTM (even the courtroom or politics), most propositions will have absolute truth-values. The defendant is guilty or not guilty, the proposed economic plan will be good for the economy or not good for the economy.

I did actually refer to evidence seldom being absolute. "Seldom" is, perhaps, a little strong; lots of things are very evident, but they don't tend to be the focus of our attention.

The point I meant to make about pure logic is that it works with generalised predicates and valid inferences that can be drawn irrespective of the predicates' truth-values. Whatever meaning is assigned to the predicates in the real world, the inferences remain valid.

There are two issues present in real life scenarios, of course.

The first is that sometimes the criteria for 'true' or 'false' can be debated - in the economic plan example, some might say the plan is 'good' so long as it prevents a recession or depression, others might argue that for it to be 'good' it should stimulate growth and usher in a new golden age. Once criteria have been decided, however, the proposition will have a definite truth-value.

This point is much the same as the one you make about the hidden premise - in this case, the definition of "good". Good from whose perspective? Over what timescale? Once those are specified we come to ...

The second issue is that even though a proposition has a definite truth value, we may not know what that truth value is. In the case of the economic plan that is because the statement is future-dependant: We will know in x years time whether or not this plan was good, but we necessarily cannot know now. It still has a definite truth-value, but we cannot know it at the present time. In the courtroom example it may be because we just don't have enough evidence to obtain the truth - the evidence may point to the defendant as being guilty when further evidence would reveal the truth to be otherwise, and vice-versa.

The truth-value may become evident, but that's not much help when we have to make decisions beforehand, going on what evidence we've got.

My point was that ad hominem is always a fallacious argument, but that in some situations an argument that superficially appears to be ad hominem is actually nothing of the sort. I'm not saying that things are clear cut or that evidence should speak for itself - on the contrary I'm pointing out a method by which we can sort the wheat from the chaff to better obtain the true answer.

I wholeheartedly agree that ad hominem is always fallacy, and that hidden premises should be brought into the light of day. (Personally, I would say "more likely obtain" rather than "better obtain", but that's a style point of no great relevance. It just circumvents having to define "better".) Hidden premises won't always lead to a cast-iron conclusion, but finding and expressing them does concentrate the mind wonderfully.

[CapelDodger]

What if the debate is about the person's motives or reliability?

Ad hominem arguments can still be wielded against a third person's arguments as to what the subject's motives and reliability are likely to be. As in "He would argue that because of what [the subject] said about his mother", rather than addressing the argument.

We're skirting the margins of infinite regression here ... :)

[Mobyseven]

I did actually refer to evidence seldom being absolute. "Seldom" is, perhaps, a little strong; lots of things are very evident, but they don't tend to be the focus of our attention.

The point I meant to make about pure logic is that it works with generalised predicates and valid inferences that can be drawn irrespective of the predicates' truth-values. Whatever meaning is assigned to the predicates in the real world, the inferences remain valid.

Oh, I agree. I don't see that as a failing of predicate logic, however - it highlights the need for a different method by which the premises of an argument can be evaluated (for any argument that relates to empirical reality). By itself you can make valid logical arguments all day long - but without a method (such as empiricism) to evaluate the base premises your arguments will not be sound, and therefore not relevant to the real world. Predicate logic plays exactly the role it needs to - it doesn't do everything, but then it was never supposed to anyway.

This point is much the same as the one you make about the hidden premise - in this case, the definition of "good". Good from whose perspective? Over what timescale? Once those are specified we come to ...

True. My point was more that we need to know the definitions being used before we can say anything meaningful about the argument. Once terms have been reasonably defined the premises will assume definite truth values (in most cases, and regardless of whether or not we can know the truth value at the time).

The truth-value may become evident, but that's not much help when we have to make decisions beforehand, going on what evidence we've got.

True again, but my point was simply that such statements do have definite truth values (in many cases - there are a few where they cannot). The decision making process is one in which probabilities would have to be looked at and evaluated, but such a process is separate to the point I was making.

I wholeheartedly agree that ad hominem is always fallacy, and that hidden premises should be brought into the light of day. (Personally, I would say "more likely obtain" rather than "better obtain", but that's a style point of no great relevance. It just circumvents having to define "better".) Hidden premises won't always lead to a cast-iron conclusion, but finding and expressing them does concentrate the mind wonderfully.

Agreed overall, and also with your rephrasing of "better obtain" to "more likely obtain". Personally I dislike using arguments in which there are hidden premises (although occasionally I do so unintentionally) - if those premises are well understood then why not simply state them in the first place and avoid unnecessary criticism? If the premises are not well understood, then obviously the argument you were going to use requires a bit more thought anyway, in order to clearly make your point (or indeed, your argument may be irreparably flawed, in which case you would want to seriously evaluate your position).

[rcronk]

This part of the conversation is interesting to me as a computer programmer. It almost seems like when we get into the realm of pure logic, it's very "digital" in nature - very 1/0, true/false, no gray area. The gray area comes in when we're converting reality into premises and conclusions back into reality. Kind of like analog to digital conversion.

For example, there are inputs to a logical argument and these inputs come from good old messy reality - whether they be blurry photographs, possibly biased testimony, unclear definitions, or other forms of evidence. Once these things have been converted to premises (the hard part?) then the logic is simple and straightforward. The conclusion can then be converted back to something that impacts reality again.

So to take my previous example of the imaginary anti-Semite WTC 7 witness, the inputs to the argument are the testimony of this witness, the existence of his website, definitions about what running such a website means, etc. Some of these things are messy and gray but once they are sorted out and converted into simple premises, the logic is clear and simple.

So I guess the problem I (and perhaps others) have is the sorting out and converting of reality into premises, defining terms, etc. And in the midst of this mess, does ad hominem exist during this conversion (really before the logical argument itself) - as in asserting that persons who run anti-Semite websites who then accuse Jews of doing something illegal should have their testimony only count for 11.3% of its original value - or something like that.

Is experience the best (only) way to get better at doing this or is there a really cool book or website out there (other than http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html or wikipedia) that helps people pick apart an argument and convert it into a purely logical argument without fallacy (with lots of examples).

[CapelDodger]

Agreed overall, and also with your rephrasing of "better obtain" to "more likely obtain". Personally I dislike using arguments in which there are hidden premises (although occasionally I do so unintentionally) - if those premises are well understood then why not simply state them in the first place and avoid unnecessary criticism? If the premises are not well understood, then obviously the argument you were going to use requires a bit more thought anyway, in order to clearly make your point (or indeed, your argument may be irreparably flawed, in which case you would want to seriously evaluate your position).

In general conversation we don't always lay out intermediate premises when we jump from one point to another; only if a disagreement arises, or we're asked for clarification, do we specify them. Sometimes this can be an education to us, when we realise we've made an unjustifed assumption.

Revealing the hidden premises in someone else's (invalid) argument is often a good way to show them their error. Whether they're prepared to see it is, of course, another matter entirely :).

[CapelDodger]

This part of the conversation is interesting to me as a computer programmer. It almost seems like when we get into the realm of pure logic, it's very "digital" in nature - very 1/0, true/false, no gray area. The gray area comes in when we're converting reality into premises and conclusions back into reality. Kind of like analog to digital conversion.

I started professional life as a programmer, then moved into analysis which straddles the border between the digital world of the computer and the analogue world of the client - which is often gray and confused. Wetware is where the problems arise :).


Is experience the best (only) way to get better at doing this or is there a really cool book or website out there (other than http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html or wikipedia) that helps people pick apart an argument and convert it into a purely logical argument without fallacy (with lots of examples).

It still takes practice, and experience of the sort of arguments people make (including your own). Even if an argument seems obviously right, look for any hidden assumptions that may be questionable.

[Denver]

To me this is about prioritization of resources.

I'd agree with this thread in that statements or evidence can't be dismissed simply because of the person presenting them. However, when people make statements that challenge our world view, it is reasonable to use their reputation to decide how we prioritize their claims among all the other things going on in our life, and how we prioritize the resources we have as regarding investigating their claims.

This gets a little more slippery when we try to influence another's prioritizing based on a person's reputation. But in real life, getting the whole picture around a claim, including some background on the person making it, is necessary if we are to use our resources most efficiently.

[Dorian Gray]

I didn't know where to put a logic/debate/fallacy question so here it is in the "science" section. This isn't the science section, it's the religion/philosophy section, you moron!

There's your answer, for that ad hom was certainly valid.

[CapelDodger]

To me this is about prioritization of resources.

I'd agree with this thread in that statements or evidence can't be dismissed simply because of the person presenting them. However, when people make statements that challenge our world view, it is reasonable to use their reputation to decide how we prioritize their claims among all the other things going on in our life, and how we prioritize the resources we have as regarding investigating their claims.

This gets a little more slippery when we try to influence another's prioritizing based on a person's reputation. But in real life, getting the whole picture around a claim, including some background on the person making it, is necessary if we are to use our resources most efficiently.

As you say, a bit more slippery when we start referring others to the subject's reputation. If you're sure to convinced that the reputation is deserved, it's only right and proper that you make others aware of it and of at least some of the evidence.

Lawyer's tricks such as "the witness is a proven liar, since they cheated on their partner which must have involved some lying" are not acceptable. But when a witness attests to accidental earwigging of a Jewish conversation (how did he know? Was it in Yiddish? Did they have big noses? Did they just look like New Yorkers? I digress ...) the jury should be told that he's an out-and-proud anti-Semite activist.

In different circumstances, such as economics, you have to consider track-records. It's an odd fact that being wrong never seems to harm an economist's reputation, as long as they're wrong in the right way. J K Galbraith put it much better - and he was very seldom wrong. Not that popular in recent decades, though. He was right in the wrong way.

[CapelDodger]

This isn't the science section, it's the religion/philosophy section, you moron!

There's your answer, for that ad hom was certainly valid.

That wasn't an ad hominem, it was a gratuitous insult. And where do you go from "moron"? You've pretty much shot your wad right there, over nothing really.

Insult isn't just thuggery, it's an art.

[rcronk]

This isn't the science section, it's the religion/philosophy section, you moron!

There's your answer, for that ad hom was certainly valid.

FYI - I originally put it in science, then it was moved to another subforum, and then was finally moved to religion/philosophy... you steaming pile of bovine excrement! Thanks for the example though.

[Tricky]

Insult isn't just thuggery, it's an art.
Indeed. The best insults leave the plodding insultee unsure whether or not he or his scrawny dog have been insulted.

[CapelDodger]

Indeed. The best insults leave the plodding insultee unsure whether or not he or his scrawny dog have been insulted.

The greatest satisfaction is achieved by drawing them along (to your audience's amusement) to the point where their own scrawny dog turns on them.

[Denver]

One way to solve the dilemma of whether to use arguments about the person's reputation might go something like this:

"Hello. I was tempted to not respond to your claims at all, since in the past you <ad-hominem cite1> and <ad-hominem cite2>.

However, that could be seen as an ad hominem attack on you rather than an argument against your claims. So, assuming that in this instance you are sincerely stating your beliefs in the spirit of critical thinking, I will address those on their own merits." etc.

[rcronk]

One way to solve the dilemma of whether to use arguments about the person's reputation might go something like this:

"Hello. I was tempted to not respond to your claims at all, since in the past you <ad-hominem cite1> and <ad-hominem cite2>.

However, that could be seen as an ad hominem attack on you rather than an argument against your claims. So, assuming that in this instance you are sincerely stating your beliefs in the spirit of critical thinking, I will address those on their own merits." etc.

That seems pretty good - just lay it out on the table and be civil about it, letting the other guy know that you know what's going on but addressing the issue at hand instead of attacking them personally. It also shows a peacemaker and good faith spirit. Good stuff - thanks.

[CapelDodger]

That seems pretty good - just lay it out on the table and be civil about it, letting the other guy know that you know what's going on but addressing the issue at hand instead of attacking them personally. It also shows a peacemaker and good faith spirit. Good stuff - thanks.

Civility is important. It's not just morally right (IMO), but it lubricates a discussion. Confrontation never persuades anybody; it might make them shut up or change the subject, but that's far from equivalent. And if other parties become uncivil and confrontational - which opinionated people often do - you've got the moral high-ground.

Besides which, incivility is stressful, not just for those directly involved but for everybody around them.

[Olowkow]

Civility is important. It's not just morally right (IMO), but it lubricates a discussion. Confrontation never persuades anybody; it might make them shut up or change the subject, but that's far from equivalent. And if other parties become uncivil and confrontational - which opinionated people often do - you've got the moral high-ground.

Besides which, incivility is stressful, not just for those directly involved but for everybody around them.

I agree with all of this...BUT...I was recently following a thread in which an individual made repeated blanket statements implying heavily that atheists have no moral code, and were therefore all immoral, etc., the standard line of the fundy.

My adrenalin flowed, and I jumped in and told him I was insulted, and insulted him back, twice.

He responded that these were "ad hom" attacks, which surprised me actually, because I thought they were just insults! I was not trying to discredit his claim that atheists were immoral, stupid on the face of it, but rather I was just venting my anger.

So I looked up "ad hominem" and discovered that a "popular usage" of this term is just "insult". So it looks like as if the meaning has smeared into a broader one in "common parlance" or in the popular language. Kind of like "awesome", drives me nuts.

[robinson]

Besides which, incivility is stressful, not just for those directly involved but for everybody around them.


So true. I tend to ignore people that are insulting or rude. Even if they are correct in their facts.

[CapelDodger]

I agree with all of this...BUT...I was recently following a thread in which an individual made repeated blanket statements implying heavily that atheists have no moral code, and were therefore all immoral, etc., the standard line of the fundy.

My adrenalin flowed, and I jumped in and told him I was insulted, and insulted him back, twice.

And why not? He ( I'm thinking plumjam?) chose the rules of engagement, so there's nothing wrong in playing by them, especially if you can do it better.

He responded that these were "ad hom" attacks, which surprised me actually, because I thought they were just insults! I was not trying to discredit his claim that atheists were immoral, stupid on the face of it, but rather I was just venting my anger.

So I looked up "ad hominem" and discovered that a "popular usage" of this term is just "insult". So it looks like as if the meaning has smeared into a broader one in "common parlance" or in the popular language. Kind of like "awesome", drives me nuts.

Tell me about it ...

It's an assault on language itself, and without language where are we? Up our own arses like Wittgenstein or Derrida or plumjam, DOC, and all the other genetic back-wash.

"Glove slap.
I don't take crap.
Glove slap baby-eee-eee".

(Courtesy of The Simpsons).

Insult is a challenge, ad hominem is a fallacy. Clarity is a challenge, and it's not one that believers take on. They prefer a foggy playing-field where they can exercise their sophistic talents in the fond hope that nobody can see them.

[CapelDodger]

So true. I tend to ignore people that are insulting or rude. Even if they are correct in their facts.

That's your choice, and I understand and respect it.

If someone's right about something and I'm wrong, I'll go hands-up and concede gracefully.

If someone's right and rude about something I'll go through the normal process : Denial, anger, acceptance, revenge, closure. And I never forget :).

[CapelDodger]

Indeed. The best insults leave the plodding insultee unsure whether or not he or his scrawny dog have been insulted.

Coincidentally, there's a local news story about a guy being killed by his own dog. Tragic as this is to all concerned (including the dog), I can't help thinking that nothing quite says "loser" like having your own dog turn on you.

[Denver]

So true. I tend to ignore people that are insulting or rude. Even if they are correct in their facts.

That reminds me of an old saying:

"People want to know how much you care before they care how much you know".

[uruk]

My favorite saying is:

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean that I don't understand."

[CapelDodger]

My favorite saying is:

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean that I don't understand."

That cracked me up when I first heard it, and still makes me giggle. It's so beautiful.

I have a great fondness for "You seem to have mistaken me for someone that cares/gives a **** ".

[CapelDodger]

That reminds me of an old saying:

"People want to know how much you care before they care how much you know".

Thanks for that. It's new to me, and it packs an elegant punch.

Linking it back to the judgement of evidence thing, knowing how much someone cares about a subject can help in evaluating what they claim to be knowledge. Are they impartial, or are they pre-determined on one outcome from the knowledge they register? Does ideology dominate in their world-view, and determine what are facts and what aren't? In short : how prejudiced is this witness?

[Jeff Corey]

Just jumping in, but google for "confirmation bias". And the Wason Card Problem for how pervasive confirmation bias is.