Sorry - this is kind of a minor quibble, but this is a mistake. An argument is sound if its premises are true and it is valid. A sound argument is always valid. An invalid argument cannot be sound. But it's not really an important point for this discussion.
Gah, you're absolutely right. I did think I had it wrong somewhere, but convinced myself I was good to go, anyway. Thanks for the correction.
Well, I'd say that I turned them into arguments, but I won't argue the point. You are absolutely right that the condition, reputation, or identity of the arguer never matters as to the soundness and validity of the argument. But you can't always look at an argument and tell whether or not it is sound. (You can, if you are smart enough, and I think we both are, look at an argument and tell whether or not it is valid.) So your decision whether or not to believe an argument is sound is actually not dependent on whether the argument actually is sound, but based on what little information you have indicating its soundness. And the reliability of the proponent of a premise is one of those pieces of information.
I know it is, regarding your last remark, but it is risky and often misguided thinking to do so, which is why it's a fallacy.
Again, you aren't supposed, logically speaking, to believe or disbelieve arguments. You're supposed to prove them, to use logical proofs, truth tables, and formal examination (modus ponens, modus tollens, etc.).
"Just as fallacious" in the sense that neither is fallacious. "Dr. Right is correct because he's an expert in his field" is fallacious. "Rush Limbaugh is wrong because he's a bigot" is fallacious. But using reputation to decide whom to trust is not fallacious; in fact, it is perfectly reasonable, although it may, as you note, lead you to believe some things that turn out not to be true.
I think the hairs are being split too finely, here. It ends up being the same result.
The whole idea of the fallacy of ad hominem is to keep you from belief and lead you to knowledge. You aren't being logical to believe someone is honest, accurate, what have you, based on reputation.
I keep trying to get you to understand that while what you suggest in your entire argument is accurate from an emotional standpoint, and is indeed what many people do most of the time, it is still a logical fallacy.
So what's the difference, in terms of results, for you to say "I don't tend to trust Rush Limbaugh, because he's shown evidence of being a bigot," and "Rush Limbaugh is wrong because he's a bigot?"
Don't both lead you to not listening to the man's individual arguments, but rather dismissing them and him because you "don't trust him?"
Fine, don't trust him, but examine his arguments anyway! Ad hominem is simply a warning to you that you're letting your own bigotry get in the way of your logic!
I disagree. If you say "Mr. X is wrong, because drunks are unreliable thinkers," then you've committed an ad hominem fallacy. If you say "I will disregard what Mr. X says, because you can't trust a drunk," you've made a choice (arguably a reasonable choice) about what to believe given imperfect information.
It's the same thing! Unless you're telling me you knowingly disregard correct information as often as you do incorrect?
Unless you're going to remain completely agnostic about any fact which you can't personally confirm, and, by extension, any argument that has such a fact as a premise, you're going to have to make choices about what to believe. Some of those choices will be correct, and some will not, and there is no fallacy in using the proponent's mental condition or reputation as one of your tools in trying to make your choice.
It is true that when Bob the drunk makes an argument, that argument Really Is Sound or Unsound completely regardless of his state of insobriety. But if you don't have access to that information, there's nothing wrong with betting on unsound.
It doesn't make an ad hom non-fallacious. But we're just going to have to disagree. We're talking at slightly cross-purposes here.
I'm trying to tell you that even though we all do what you suggest, it's still a fallacy to do so. That you have, or seem to have no choice doesn't make it less fallacious, but may make it more humanly, emotionally understandable.
Logic doesn't care that you don't have the time or motivation or inclination to check out every person's argument without resorting to an ad hom fallacy. Your inability doesn't render the logic moot.
