Ad hominem
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to:
navigation,
search
It has been suggested that
Personal attack be
merged into this article or section. (
Discuss)
An
ad hominem argument, also known as
argumentum ad hominem (
Latin, literally
argument against the person),
personal attack or
you-too argument, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a
logical fallacy.
It includes
ad hominem abusive (
argumentum ad personam),
ad hominem circumstantial (
ad hominem circumstantiae),
ad hominem tu quoque...
Contents
[
hide]
//
[edit] Ad hominem as logical fallacy
A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:
- Contention: Claim X is false.
- Premise: A makes claim X.
- Co-premise: There is something objectionable about A.
The first
premise is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The
contention is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. The fallacy does not represent a
valid form of reasoning because even if you accept both co-premises, that does not guarantee the truthfulness of the contention. This can also be thought of as the argument having an un-stated
co-premise.
In this fleshed out example, the un-stated co-premise "
everything that A claims is false" has been included, and the argument is therefore now a valid one. However in the ad hominem fallacy the
un-stated co-premise is always false, thereby maintaining the fallacy. Note that this does not imply that the contention "
eugenics is a bad idea" is false, merely un-supported by the pattern of reasoning below it.
Ad hominem is one of the best-known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory
logic and
critical thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse (see also
Argument from fallacy). As a technique of
rhetoric, it is powerful and used often, despite its inherent incorrectness.
In contrast, an argument that instead relies (fallaciously) on the
positive aspects of the person arguing the case is known as
appeal to authority.
[edit] Usage
[edit] In Logic
An
ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all
purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the person's argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority. Merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy. It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments. In the past,the term
ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. However, this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are in agreement that this use is incorrect.
Examples:
"You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well." "You feel that abortion should be illegal, but I disagree, because you are uneducated and poor." Not all
ad hominem fallacies are insulting:
Example:
"Paula says the umpire made the correct call, but this can't be true, because Paula was doing more important things than watching the game." This is an
ad hominem fallacy, even though it is saying something positive about the person, because it is addressing the person and not the topic in dispute.
[edit] Linguistically
In common language, any personal attack, regardless of whether it is part of an argument, is often referred to as
ad hominem.
[1]
[edit] Subtypes
Three traditionally identified varieties are
ad hominem abusive or
ad personam,
ad hominem circumstantial, and
ad hominem tu quoque.
[edit] Ad hominem abusive or ad personam
Ad hominem abusive (also called
argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but damning character flaws or actions. The reason that this is fallacious is that — usually, anyway — insults and even damaging facts simply do not undermine what logical support there might be for one's opponent's arguments or assertions;
argumentum ad personam short-circuits these potential arguments from logic in favor of a direct attack on the opponent's authority.
Examples:
"You can't believe Jack when he says there is a
God because he doesn't even have a job." "
Charles Manson wrote this song, so it must be unlistenable".
[edit] Ad hominem circumstantial
Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially,
ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that pointing out that one's opponent is disposed to make a certain argument does not make the argument, from a logical point of view, any less credible; this overlaps with the
genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source). Noting the opponent's bias is not necessarily
irrational, but neither is it strictly correct according to logic. This illustrates one of the differences between rationality and logic.
Examples:
"Tobacco company representatives are wrong when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health,
because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests." "He's physically addicted to nicotine. Of course he defends smoking!” Of course, such statements could also be reworded to avoid the logical fallacy:
"Tobacco company representatives may be
biased when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health,
because of their own multi-million-dollar financial interests. Thus, such statements may be wishful thinking, or even outright lies, on their part." "He's physically addicted to nicotine. Therefore, his defense of smoking may be
biased.” In the following example Jennifer's comment is an
ad hominem circumstantial attack against Chris's statement:
Chris: "Women should be able to be topless everywhere men can be." Jennifer: "You're just saying that because you want to see women's breasts." The
Mandy Rice-Davies ploy, "Well, he would [say that], wouldn't he?" is a use of this fallacy.
[edit] Ad hominem tu quoque
Main article: tu quoque
Ad hominem tu quoque refers to an irrelevant accusation of hypocrisy. Accusations of hypocrisy are inadmissible in legal and scientific debate, and can be distractions from the business of politics. That is, it is not relevant to the credibility of a didactic argument whether its presenter has trod over the principle he espouses. For example, a corrupt lawyer who prosecutes embezzlers may be a sleaze, but in a properly organized legal system there can be no arguments
against his defendant just because of that.
[edit] Guilt by Association
Guilt by Association is a type of ad hominem fallacy that attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.
This form of the argument is as follows:
A's makes claim P. B's also make claim P. Therefore, A is a B. Examples:
"You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, therefore you are a communist" "Conservatives are against abortion, but let us not forget that Hitler was also against abortion, therefore conservatives are Hitlers-in-training." (see
reductio ad Hitlerum) This fallacy can also take another form:
A's makes claim P. B's make claims P and Q Therefore, A makes claim Q. Examples:
"You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, and they believe in revolution. Thus, you are a danger to the State."
[edit] Argumentum Baculum
Argumentum Baculum is a type of ad hominem fallacy that is sustained by the use or threat of physical force against the proponent of an argument rather than the strength of an opposing argument.
Examples:
"I did not believe anarchism was a sustainable political system, but then Bill beat me with a stick until I agreed"
[edit] Taxonomy
The
argumentum ad hominem is a
genetic fallacy and
red herring, and is often (but not necessarily) an
appeal to emotion. Argumentum ad hominem includes
poisoning the well.
Ad hominem fallacies should not be mistakenly confused with attacks on credibility of persons asserting a fact that he/she claims to have witnessed. Such arguments are often appropriate, and in fact are major part of legal trials, particularly "cross examination". For example under the laws of evidence, which determine what testimony may be heard in court to prove a material fact, a woman testifies: "I saw him fire the gun." Evidence that the witness is prejudiced for/against the defendant, has a poor reputation for honesty, may not have had a good chance to see the event, among other things, may be offered to reduce her credibility--the "weight" given to her testimony.
[edit] See also
Look up
ad hominem in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
[edit] External links
: