Ad Hominem Attacks - Can anyone Justify them?

[Denver]

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.

Well, I think we should all do what we reasonably can, but not necessarily any more.

 

[Mojo]

Walter: Am I wrong?
Dude: No, you're not wrong, Walter -- you're just an *******.
Walter: Okay, then.

GREENSLADE: "Mr Eccles, we are not for one moment doubting your sincerity. It's just your intelligence that's in question."

ECCLES: "Well, I accept your apology."

Source

 

[Belz...]

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.

The title of the thread should be "Ad Hominem Attacks - can anyone explain them to me ?".

 

[mutile]

Not everything written on forums is an argument. There should be room for opinions and if praise is allowed, why not an insult?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Not everything written on forums is an argument. There should be room for opinions and if praise is allowed, why not an insult?

I've often wondered the same thing. It's a moderation issue and not really appropriate to discuss in a regular thread, but in general on any forum there seems to be a willingness to allow people to fawn all over somebody telling them what a great person they are, but those same forums don't allow the opposite.

 

[Cuddles]

Can anyone offer a logical justification for using the ad-hominem attack?

Why do you think there even exists a logical justification? Most people do not come to this forum, or anywhere else, in order to constantly strive to be the perfect skeptic. They come here to chat with friends, joke about things they find amusing, argue about politics, laugh at silly things people have said, and so on. Sure, there will often be some skepticism involved, but it would be foolish to imagine that everything everyone says here will always be as skeptical as possible. When someone calls someone else stupid, it's very rarely meant as an unassailable logical counter to an argument. It's simply that they think the other person is stupid and want them to know that. Trying to find the logical reason for something that was never meant as a logical argument is an exercise in futility.

I've often wondered the same thing. It's a moderation issue and not really appropriate to discuss in a regular thread, but in general on any forum everywhere there seems to be a willingness to allow people to fawn all over somebody telling them what a great person they are, but those same forums don't allow the opposite.

Fixed it for you. Civility isn't something that is limited to internet forums. Have you never heard the saying "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all."? The exact behaviour allowed and response to inappropriate behaviour will vary depending on location, but the principle has been around ever since the first caveman worked out how to hit his neighbour over the head with a rock for making rude comments about his wife's bum looking big in that antelope skin.

 

[Stout]

The title of the thread should be "Ad Hominem Attacks - can anyone explain them to me ?".

I fully agree.

Sometimes the stupid needs to be identified for what it is, hauled out into daylight and beaten to death with the mockery it deserves.

Especially if it's massive stupid, like the homeopathy claims in the thread referred to in the OP.

There were no ad-homs in that thread.

 

[Garrette]

Why do you think there even exists a logical justification? Most people do not come to this forum, or anywhere else, in order to constantly strive to be the perfect skeptic. They come here to chat with friends, joke about things they find amusing, argue about politics, laugh at silly things people have said, and so on. Sure, there will often be some skepticism involved, but it would be foolish to imagine that everything everyone says here will always be as skeptical as possible. When someone calls someone else stupid, it's very rarely meant as an unassailable logical counter to an argument. It's simply that they think the other person is stupid and want them to know that. Trying to find the logical reason for something that was never meant as a logical argument is an exercise in futility.



Fixed it for you. Civility isn't something that is limited to internet forums. Have you never heard the saying "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all."? The exact behaviour allowed and response to inappropriate behaviour will vary depending on location, but the principle has been around ever since the first caveman worked out how to hit his neighbour over the head with a rock for making rude comments about his wife's bum looking big in that antelope skin.

Or, as I occasionally say in various forms: Are we wearing our laboratory science hats or our argue-over-pints-down-the-pub hats?

 

[Skwinty]

I don't mind some one telling me I am wrong because I am wrong on many an occasion.

Just tell me why I am wrong. This does not mean I am stupid or ignorant.
Every one is often wrong on different issues.

The best strategy, IMO, is to adhere to the MA, especially Rule 0 and Rule 12. You attract more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Fixed it for you. Civility isn't something that is limited to internet forums. Have you never heard the saying "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all."? The exact behaviour allowed and response to inappropriate behaviour will vary depending on location, but the principle has been around ever since the first caveman worked out how to hit his neighbour over the head with a rock for making rude comments about his wife's bum looking big in that antelope skin.

No, you didn't fix it for me. Nice try, though.

Hint: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Internet forums have the ability to censor. Society in general only has the ability to influence behavior. Commenting on my wife's ass is unrelated to most discussions. However, if it's germane to call someone a "hero" for what they do/believe, then it should be germane for others to call that person something less flattering. Telling people not to say anything if they can't say something nice is generally a decent guideline, but in the context of debates about serious issues, I find it stifling and inappropriate.

 

[Beerina]

In politics, it's not so much about the logic of the argument, but the goal. The goals are picked, then the arguments are picked to support it.

If you only look at the arguments, you've already lost the battle and played right into your opponents' hands.


"Boy, Beerina is cynical," you think to yourself.




This has a much simpler phrasing: Follow the money.

"Oh, yeah," you think to yourself.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

In re: OP--

Of course I can, jerk.

 

[sadhatter]

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.



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.

And if i was the only source of information people had against these topics, i would agree with you. If someone wants to find out exactly how silly homeopathy is, they can go look up the information on homeopathy. But it is not my duty to reply to every post about it in a serious manner in case some person who wants to shortcut their research is browsing the forums.

Hell, if someone were to ask me " Hey, is homeopathy crap?" i would link them to the information. But if someone is going to promote it, i am not going to waste the time. More than likely i am simply going to make a joke about a homeopathic gunshot and leave it at that.

There is a direct correlation between ideas that are laughed at and how much the ideas are accepted. I mean look at bigfoot versus christianity. Bigfoot is a topic that people in general can and do laugh at and make fun of on a pretty constant basis. And wouldn't you know, it is a belief that is very fringe.

Now for a smattering of centuries christianity was taboo to laugh at or make fun of, and that is one of the contributing factors of its popularity. When you can't say " God is an a-hole." you are going to have a really hard time actually questioning the beliefs of the religion.

And the beauty is, if the people doing the laughing are wrong, they can be proved wrong with science. No matter how many jokes i fire off about homeopathic liquor, gunshots, education, etc. If someone can show it works, i just look like an idiot.

And that is the power of humor, not only does it influence people who would not want to take the time to read the scientific arguments, but it also serves as a Damacles sword for the person using it. If homeopathy was proven, i would have a lot of crow ( hopefully homeopathic crow.) to eat, and my opinion on future subjects would be called into question.

 

[Arouet]

It is actually possible to completely deconstruct a person's flawed argument, without accomodating their beliefs, and also not calling them an idiot. The thing is, when you throw in the gratuitous insult, the reader is more than likely to just ignore your argument and focus on your insult. Their false beliefs may end up reinforced.

Avoiding ad homs is not the same as taking it easy on someone. There is little gained by throwing out insults. Instead, why not use wit, or just plain forceful argument. Then we also won't have a dozen posts discussing what a jerk the other person is.

Now, is it ever called for? In some certain circumstances it is. With trolls, for example (even then I'll usually just post a pic). Or sometimes with a person who is just so completely unwilling to follow what you are saying and is acting like an idiot themselves. These situations do not come up in every thread.

 

[johnHorn]

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.

What if someone with 52 degrees who's lectured in sixty universities on physics, and knows, more about einsteins theory of general relativity than almost anyone else, actually thought the sun revolved around the earth? Is it then appropriate to diagnose them with insanity instead? Or does this apply only to stupidity? In-fact can one call someone a brick if their argument is exactly what a racist brick would think of cement?
Just asking. Just wondering what you call someone who is too smart to be stupid?

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.

:-0 that's a good point but that unhominems the ad hominem because it's a question of their reputability then.
mentioning the quality of past documents and their political ideology may be also something that isn't fallacious. depending of course on the context.
Even though the argument may be styled like an ad-hominem it is still the responsibility to correctly recognize that it isn't.

 

[Uncayimmy]

It is actually possible to completely deconstruct a person's flawed argument, without accomodating their beliefs, and also not calling them an idiot. The thing is, when you throw in the gratuitous insult, the reader is more than likely to just ignore your argument and focus on your insult. Their false beliefs may end up reinforced.

Avoiding ad homs is not the same as taking it easy on someone. There is little gained by throwing out insults. Instead, why not use wit, or just plain forceful argument. Then we also won't have a dozen posts discussing what a jerk the other person is.

Evidence?

 

[kerikiwi]

Avoiding ad homs is not the same as taking it easy on someone. There is little gained by throwing out insults.

Ad hominems are not insults.

 

[kerikiwi]

Just wondering what you call someone who is too smart to be stupid?

'Smart' and stupid are not antonyms.

 

[Denver]

...

:-0 that's a good point but that unhominems the ad hominem because it's a question of their reputability then.
mentioning the quality of past documents and their political ideology may be also something that isn't fallacious. depending of course on the context.
Even though the argument may be styled like an ad-hominem it is still the responsibility to correctly recognize that it isn't.

The issue above was about a ballot initiative. One would expect a relevant response to concern itself only with the initiative itself. The attacks on the author's reputation, motives, character, and so on, would be ad-hominem in that context, since the author is no where mentioned in the initiative. But there are elements of trust and abuse of that trust involved in the outcome of the initiative, and an exploration of the author's character and other details of their life, while normally only relevant to the author as a person, can be used to help understand the trust issues in the intent and unannounced plans of the initiative.


As wiki puts it:

An ad hominem ... is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious. For in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.

So in the case of the initiative, they were still ad hominem, but were relevant. And so, justified.

 

[MatildaGage]

Sometimes, calling someone insane is an ad hominem attack.

Sometimes it's simply a logical analysis, followed by drawing an accurate conclusion, in the face of actual mental illness.