Ad Hominem Attacks - Can anyone Justify them?

[sadhatter]

No fine line here. I've been working in the turnip industry for years and I'm tired of this ugly, mean-spirited metaphor. Do I go to your place of employment and knock whatever out of whatever?

Is it my fault your kind don't provide adequate seats within your turnip transportation vehicles? You can't ignore the facts, turnip trucks have been a faulty and dangerous method of transportation since the dawn of turnips and trucks.

Evil, careless lot you turnip folk are.

 

[Dunstan]

Made me think we need an inverse to the ad hom fallacy.

Yes, I'm a complete asshat, but I'm also right.

I think the inverse would be "I'm right because you're calling me an asshat." It's more frequently phrased as "you're only offended because you know I'm right," "cuts too close to home," or "looks like I touched a nerve."

 

[Skwinty]

The ad hominem argument is not necessarily bad, or wrong and has never been regarded as such. It serves a practicla purpose when used correctly. certainly Aristotle would prefer hte rational argument, but I don't recall thast he dismissed the ethical appeal (ad hominem argument) as useless or wrong.

I guess that is why Rule 0 and Rule 12 are in the MA.

 

[mike3]

Hi all,

I am starting this thread because of I what I perceive to be abuses of this logical fallacy, and a recent conversation in this thread :
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196349

We have all seen various ad hominem attacks being made, from simple name calling to more elaborate ploys like insinuations of sexual misconduct & such.

I see it like this: A skeptic or critical thinker is only as good as their logic. To claim to be a skeptic is to claim to have a special and superior system of thinking that aids in finding out the truth. So if one knowingly indulges in bad logic, they are by that fact alone, treading on the ideas that they claim to uphold. It is like a race car driver refusing to get in the car; an act that alters the nature of the person committing it.

Of course no one is perfect. People will make mistakes in thinking. That is not desirable, but it is unavoidable and forgivable. On the other hand, to knowingly employ a tactic that is deemed worthless by the tenets of logical thought & discussion seems beyond the pale.

We can all see that being done plainly enough. This very forum is filled with people & groups being called stupid or similar names. Can anyone offer a logical justification for using the ad-hominem attack?

I am hoping others will offer their insights here and that we can have a friendly and enlightening conversation on the topic.

Best regards, Canis

There is no logical justification. I try to avoid use of these "techniques" as much as possible.

 

[jakesteele]

I think it all boils down to the talk Phil Plait gave about not being a Dick, especially an insufferable one. Those are the worst.

 

[mike3]

The ad hominem argument is not necessarily bad, or wrong and has never been regarded as such. It serves a practicla purpose when used correctly. certainly Aristotle would prefer hte rational argument, but I don't recall thast he dismissed the ethical appeal (ad hominem argument) as useless or wrong.

However, the proper usage is not the kind I usually see in these kinds of debates. The proper usage would be something like "I've seen this guy before, and I've noticed he's told a lot of blatant lies about things like this, so I'd be highly suspicious of this claim if I were you".

Dismissing an argument with "you're stupid" is not a valid answer. Including "you're stupid" in the argument is just being childish, and it makes these kinds of debates disgusting and appalling more than enlightening. Morally, it only serves to make more bitterness and this world has enough of that crap as it is, and we'd be better off to do without it.

 

[kerikiwi]

I think it all boils down to the talk Phil Plait gave about not being a Dick, especially an insufferable one. Those are the worst.

How do we distinguish a sufferable dick from the insufferable variety? Or a capitalised one from the other kind? Damn, that gives 4 varieties to sort out!

 

[kerikiwi]

Dismissing an argument with "you're stupid" is not a valid answer.

I beg to differ. Sometimes arguments are so beyond sane that 'you're stupid' as a simple statement of fact, is the only not-stupid answer.

 

[sadhatter]

However, the proper usage is not the kind I usually see in these kinds of debates. The proper usage would be something like "I've seen this guy before, and I've noticed he's told a lot of blatant lies about things like this, so I'd be highly suspicious of this claim if I were you".

Dismissing an argument with "you're stupid" is not a valid answer. Including "you're stupid" in the argument is just being childish, and it makes these kinds of debates disgusting and appalling more than enlightening. Morally, it only serves to make more bitterness and this world has enough of that crap as it is, and we'd be better off to do without it.

The problem is there are times when someone is just being stupid. There is no way around it, and attempting to sugar coat your opinion of their stupidity is going to do nothing more than to make their argument seem more worthy.

Someone tells me it is logical to accept their story because i wasn't there ( commonly encountered as " give me the benefit of the doubt."). I am going to say "that is some silly/stupid logic. ". And why? Because it is. I could sit down and write a 3 page explanation but in my experience someone that has shown a certain level of stupidity , is not going to read the 3 page explanation. And all it is going to do is lead to me receiving a 3 word response for about ever 100 words i write.

If someone is putting effort into the debate, sure i will return in kind. But if someone is using grade school logic , not only are they not going to understand a well thought out logical rebuttal, but they will be less likely to read it because to them it comes off as " Pompous and **anyone who has seen idiocracy should get the reference. **"

One of the first things you learn in acting is to play to your audience. You don't try and run shakespear in Sheepbride Missisipi, and you don't try and convince someone who thinks " But i am not a liar." is proof, with a 3 page cited report.

 

[Uncayimmy]

How do we distinguish a sufferable dick from the insufferable variety? Or a capitalised one from the other kind? Damn, that gives 4 varieties to sort out!

Just send me a PM, and I'll pop in the thread and decide for everyone. It's the least I can do, and I always do the least I can do.

 

[mike3]

I beg to differ. Sometimes arguments are so beyond sane that 'you're stupid' as a simple statement of fact, is the only not-stupid answer.

That doesn't make sense. The claim is still an opinion. (Being wrong on one particular line of discourse doesn't mean absolutely everything else must be the same way.) And from a moral point of view, even if some things are true, it may still be best to observe silence. Finally, if the argument is so wrong, it should be very simple and easy to provide a correct explanation or pointer to the wrong. And that could educate ignorant people who are reading the discussion (if one is not an expert in a topic but to the expert the argument is extremely blatantly wrong, one may still be lulled into believing it or be left unsatisfied (this has happened to me a lot since I often read such debates in the interest of learning more) while reading it.). So to be fair to others as well, I include a regular refute.

I try to never use this claim, even if the argument is "so beyond sane". I may say the argument or viewpoint is stupid, however, but usually I just provide some sort of real explanation. Of course I, like everyone else, am not perfect, so I may have used it at some point in the past but I can't remember when or where.

 

[mike3]

The problem is there are times when someone is just being stupid. There is no way around it, and attempting to sugar coat your opinion of their stupidity is going to do nothing more than to make their argument seem more worthy.

Someone tells me it is logical to accept their story because i wasn't there ( commonly encountered as " give me the benefit of the doubt."). I am going to say "that is some silly/stupid logic. ". And why? Because it is. I could sit down and write a 3 page explanation but in my experience someone that has shown a certain level of stupidity , is not going to read the 3 page explanation. And all it is going to do is lead to me receiving a 3 word response for about ever 100 words i write.

I would just say it was not logical, and perhaps also a brief explanation of why, e.g. "just because I wasn't there, doesn't mean that you must be telling the truth". If they can't get that, there's no point in quibbling it any more, best to simply forget it. No need to write a 3-page discourse. If they refuse to understand, I'd say "well if you can't understand this logic, I see no point in trying to persist with you on this point any more..." or something to that effect.

If someone is putting effort into the debate, sure i will return in kind. But if someone is using grade school logic , not only are they not going to understand a well thought out logical rebuttal, but they will be less likely to read it because to them it comes off as " Pompous and **anyone who has seen idiocracy should get the reference. **"

They might not read it, but they also might not take "you're stupid" as a motivator to get more educated. So it doesn't help either. And a logical response could be useful to other naive people who are reading but do have more desire to learn. These debates are not happening in sealed rooms -- the whole world is or could be watching.

 

[Apology]

If you think you see something that's against the forum rules, then report it. The thread you're complaining about did not violate the forum rules. It's perfectly valid to read a list of absurd claims and wonder about the claimant's sanity.

 

[Denver]

While it is a logical fallacy, it sometimes works as a heuristic. Especially if the person in question has an ideology that creates predictable baseless conclusions..

I think ad hominems can also help establish trustworthiness.

Recently, a guy mostly unknown to the general public put a ballot measure for a new city ordinance on the Denver November ballot. It called for the creation of a new commission, specifying the qualifications of the appointed members.

Those who have followed this person's antics in the past did not trust him, and could identify slightly ambiguous parts of the ballot language, and member qualifications, as being tailor-made for his questionable friends. They could also find things that he said would be done or would be true if people voted for the initiative, to be false and unlikely (as in the case of some political candidates). And things that MIGHT be good or bad, depending on the person's true intents, they felt would be bad, considering his track record.

And so, one of the tactics they used to oppose the ballot initiative, was to use ad hominem attacks: bringing to light dumb things he's said and done in the past; pointing out his lack of education and qualifications for constructing a ballot initiative; attacking the topic of the initiative, rather than the initiative itself; listing the questionable motives of his friends; and so on.

This was a minor part of the opposition campaign. But it seemed worth while, since the ballot initiative was a new thing for many people, and so was the author. Deciding whether it was a good idea or not went beyond just what was written down: it also included the trustworthiness of the author, and what he and his cronies has planned were this to actually pass.

So I think in such a case, to help establish the trust of the person, ad hominems can be a useful tool. Not the only tool, and probably not the primary tool. But it can help shed some light on important areas otherwise in shadows.

 

[maledoro]

Wouldn't it depend on what was said? If one were to say that Erich von Däniken shouldn't be taken seriously because he had evaded paying taxes (which he had), I would see that as an ad hominem. But it would be a different thing if it were pointed out that his theories were based on little evidence and his ignoring of more likely hypotheses.

 

[schrodingasdawg]

Or for supporting their arguments. Every subject or argument is not important enough to spend time educating yourself about. It makes sense, therefore, to accept the evidence of those we deem worthy of trust and to reject that evidence of those we do not, all other rational factors being equal.

If there is a thread about some new development in science and James Randi posts that it is pseudoscience and Kent Hovind posts (from prison, I guess) that it is cutting edge science - rather than become a scientist and get a full education in the field, it's a lot mroe practical for me to accept Randi's word, unless the balance of evidence changes.

The ad hominem argument is not necessarily bad, or wrong and has never been regarded as such. It serves a practicla purpose when used correctly. certainly Aristotle would prefer hte rational argument, but I don't recall thast he dismissed the ethical appeal (ad hominem argument) as useless or wrong.

I think there's an important point to be made in using a person's character to establish trustworthiness. However, "ad hominem," as I understand it, is the use of attacks on a person's character as an excuse not to deal with the argument at hand rather than to not trust them.

 

[Garrette]

I think the inverse would be "I'm right because you're calling me an asshat." It's more frequently phrased as "you're only offended because you know I'm right," "cuts too close to home," or "looks like I touched a nerve."

No, no. This is true only if you take me literally and try to be logical. I was looking for something that uses asshattedness as a virtue.

In its raw form it would be like this:

I'm a dick so I'm right.


But in its advanced form it would be like this:

I'm UncaYimmy so I'm right.


*I trust UncaYimmy to understand this post, but in the interest of those who may not: I'm not actually attacking UY; I largely agree with him.

 

[Dani]

I've met people on forums that continuously use ad hominem arguments and insults, and when I pointed out that they weren't behaving properly, they accused me of using ad hominem arguments. And they're wrong about everything.

 

[Denver]

I think the only way to judge the appropriateness of an ad hominem attack, is to first understand the specific claim being made.

If it is one that be can tested, or its verity can be demonstrated, in a reasonable time period using reasonable resources, then an ad hominem should not be used.

If it cannot, AND in the time period that the claim remains untested, there is a real risk of harm to others acting on that claim (financially, psychologically, physiologically, or otherwise), then I think an ad hominem attack could be ethically justified.

 

[mike3]

I think the only way to judge the appropriateness of an ad hominem attack, is to first understand the specific claim being made.

If it is one that be can tested, or its verity can be demonstrated, in a reasonable time period using reasonable resources, then an ad hominem should not be used.

If it cannot, AND in the time period that the claim remains untested, there is a real risk of harm to others acting on that claim (financially, psychologically, physiologically, or otherwise), then I think an ad hominem attack could be ethically justified.

However, what about the converse: if I see a debate on a stupid net forum where someone is making claims about some pseudoscience but I don't get in there and debate at all, if the "pseudoscience" being so debated may be capable of causing harm? For example, many times I have seen spams or threads claiming that "homeopathy works!" or something like that on various online fora, though I know it doesn't. I hardly ever get involved with them. Does this mean I am racking up evil points like crazy? It is just not possible to get involved to any extent in every debate thread.