Is ad hominem ever valid?

[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 Life^TM (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 Life^TM (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.