Ad hominem
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This section does not cite its references or sources. Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations. (help, get involved!) Any unsourced material that has been or is likely to be challenged may be removed at any time. This article has been tagged since January 2007. |
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.
Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as being guilty of the same thing that he is arguing against.
Contents |
[edit] Ad hominem as logical fallacy
A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:
- Person A makes claim X
- There is something objectionable about Person A
- Therefore claim X is false
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 because of the natural inclination of the human brain to recognize patterns.[attribution needed]
In contrast, an argument that instead relies (fallaciously) on the positive aspects of the person arguing the case is known as appeal to authority.
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.
[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. [1]
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 legal, 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] Colloquially
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 or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensibly damning character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions. This tactic is frequently employed as a propaganda tool among politicians who are attempting to influence the voter base in their favor through an appeal to emotion rather than by logical means, especially when their own position is logically weaker than their opponent's.
Examples:
- "You can't believe Jack when he says there isn't any God because he doesn't even have a job."
- "Charles Manson wrote this song, so it must be unlistenable".
- "Candidate Jane Jones' proposal X is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."
[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
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 behaving hypocritically, but this does not weaken the evidence he presents against the accused embezzlers. (This is true unless there is reason to believe that the evidence may have been fabricated, and to believe that hypocrites are more likely to present fabricated evidence).
[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 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 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 believe in revolution."
A similar tactic may be employed to encourage someone to renounce an opinion, or force them to choose between renouncing an opinion or admitting membership in a group. For example:
"You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable. You don't really mean that, do you? communists say the same thing. You're not a communist, are you?"
Guilt by association may be combined with Ad hominem abusive. For example:
"You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, and therefore you are a communist. Communists are unlikeable, and therefore everything they say is false, and therefore everything you say is false."
[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.
[edit] See also
- Ad feminam
- "And you are lynching Negroes"
- Association fallacy
- Fundamental attribution error
- Shooting the messenger
[edit] References
Hurley, Patrick (2000). A Concise Introduction to Logic, Seventh Edition. Wadsworth, a division of Thompson Learning, 125-128, 182. ISBN 0534520065.
[edit] External links
- Humbug! Online Personal Abuse.
- Nizkor.org. Fallacy: Ad Hominem.
- Nizkor.org. Fallacy: Circumstantial Ad Hominem.
- Philosophy.lander.edu. Argumentum Ad Hominem
- University of Winnipeg. Argumentation Schemes and Historical Origins of the Circumstantial Ad Hominen ArgumentPDF (70.2 KiB)
- About.com. Argument Against the Person (Argumentum ad hominem)
- The Fallacy Files. Argumentum ad Hominem
- Logical Fallacies .Info. Ad Hominem
- Infidels.org Logic and Fallacies: Constructing a Logical Argument (Argumentum ad Hominem)
