Print
Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem
by Scientific American
Thanks to Logicel for the link.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=character-attack
Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem
A new theory parses fair from unfair uses of personal criticism in rhetoric
By Yvonne Raley
A doctor tells her patient to lose weight, and the patient thinks: "If my doctor really believed that, she wouldn't be so fat." A movie aficionado pans the latest Tom Cruise flick because Cruise is a Scientologist. A homeowner ignores a neighbor's advice on lawn care because the neighbor is a ... you name it: Democrat, Republican, Christian or atheist. These examples illustrate classic uses of ad hominem attacks, in which an argument is rejected, or advanced, based on a personal characteristic of an individual rather than on reasons for or against the claim itself.
Putting the focus on the arguer or person being discussed can distract us from the issues that matter. Rather than concentrating on an individual's character, we should, in these cases, be asking ourselves questions such as, Is the doctor's advice medically sound? Is the Cruise film entertaining? Is the neighbor's lawn healthy? Meanwhile ad hominem attacks can also unfairly discredit an individual, especially because such critiques are often effective.
Although ad hominem arguments have long been considered errors in reasoning, a recent analysis suggests that this is not always the case. In his new book, Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion, and Rhetoric, University of Winnipeg philosopher Douglas Walton proposes that fallacies such as the ad hominem are better understood as perversions or corruptions of perfectly good arguments. Regarding the ad hominem, Walton contends that although such attacks are usually fallacious, they can be legitimate when a character critique is directly or indirectly related to the point being articulated.
If Walton is right, distinguishing clearly between these cases is important to evaluating the validity of statements people make to us about others. Good or fair uses of ad hominem critiques should, in fact, persuade us, whereas unwarranted uses should not.
Corruptions
Which ad hominem arguments should we aim to ignore? In the so-called abusive ad hominem, someone argues that because a person has a bad character, we should not accept that person's claims. For instance, during the presidential campaign of 1800, John Adams was called "a fool, a gross hypocrite and an unprincipled oppressor." His rival, Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, was deemed "an uncivilized atheist, anti-American, a tool for the godless French." Accusations like these can easily foreclose on intelligent political discourse about what might make either candidate a good president.
Another illegitimate form of the ad hominem is the tu quoque, or "you, too" version, which is an attempt to discredit a person's claims because the person has failed to follow his or her own advice. The example of the overweight doctor prescribing weight loss falls into this category. Its use is unfair because, after all, there are good reasons for losing weight, and the fact that a doctor has not managed to heed her own advice should not dissuade others from trying to follow it.
The Cruise attack, on the other hand, exemplifies "poisoning the well," another brand of ad hominem attacks in which the character assault is launched before the listener has a chance to form his or her own opinion on a subject—in this case, Cruise's film. If successful, the reminder that Cruise is affiliated with Scientology will bias the listener against the movie. This partiality is unjustified, because Cruise's religious affiliation is not germane to his acting abilities or the entertainment value of his movie.
Fair Use
What types of ad hominems might then be justified? Walton argues that an ad hominem is valid when the claims made about a person's character or actions are relevant to the conclusions being drawn. Consider, for example, former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, who was caught on a wiretap arranging to hire a prostitute for $4,300. Because this behavior ran counter to Spitzer's anticorruption platform, its unveiling would prevent Spitzer from governing successfully; thus, criticizing this aspect of his character was relevant and fair. In an earlier scandal, in 1987, televangelist Jimmy Swaggart was seen at a motel with a prostitute. Because his behavior undercut his preaching and status as a Christian role model, a character attack based on this incident would have been spot-on.
In another case, when President Bill Clinton fibbed on national television about his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, accusations that he was a liar were not entirely unjust. Although a supporter might argue that Clinton's sex life was not directly relevant to his ability to govern, his ability to adhere to the truth could certainly be, and his willingness to lie on this occasion could call into question the veracity of his remarks on other subjects.
Of course, we should not discount everything any person says, no matter how badly he or she has been discredited. The fact that a person lies or behaves improperly on one occasion does not mean that he or she lies or behaves inappropriately all the time. Again, a critique of a person's character should not prevent further examination of the arguments at hand. After all, which position is right is usually independent of a person's character or conduct.
Being aware of how the ad hominem attack works can help us evaluate which instances of its use we should ignore and which we should consider. Ask yourself: How relevant is a political candidate's character or action to his or her ability to perform in office? How pertinent is any person's past or group affiliation to the claims that person makes or to that individual's expertise in a specific domain? If the character-based attacks are not relevant to these larger issues, then they are best ignored. Instead we should attend to what is really important: What is a person asserting? Why does he or she offer a particular view, and is the view defensible?
This story was originally printed with the title, "Character Attacks".
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=character-attack
Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem
A new theory parses fair from unfair uses of personal criticism in rhetoric
By Yvonne Raley
A doctor tells her patient to lose weight, and the patient thinks: "If my doctor really believed that, she wouldn't be so fat." A movie aficionado pans the latest Tom Cruise flick because Cruise is a Scientologist. A homeowner ignores a neighbor's advice on lawn care because the neighbor is a ... you name it: Democrat, Republican, Christian or atheist. These examples illustrate classic uses of ad hominem attacks, in which an argument is rejected, or advanced, based on a personal characteristic of an individual rather than on reasons for or against the claim itself.
Putting the focus on the arguer or person being discussed can distract us from the issues that matter. Rather than concentrating on an individual's character, we should, in these cases, be asking ourselves questions such as, Is the doctor's advice medically sound? Is the Cruise film entertaining? Is the neighbor's lawn healthy? Meanwhile ad hominem attacks can also unfairly discredit an individual, especially because such critiques are often effective.
Although ad hominem arguments have long been considered errors in reasoning, a recent analysis suggests that this is not always the case. In his new book, Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion, and Rhetoric, University of Winnipeg philosopher Douglas Walton proposes that fallacies such as the ad hominem are better understood as perversions or corruptions of perfectly good arguments. Regarding the ad hominem, Walton contends that although such attacks are usually fallacious, they can be legitimate when a character critique is directly or indirectly related to the point being articulated.
If Walton is right, distinguishing clearly between these cases is important to evaluating the validity of statements people make to us about others. Good or fair uses of ad hominem critiques should, in fact, persuade us, whereas unwarranted uses should not.
Corruptions
Which ad hominem arguments should we aim to ignore? In the so-called abusive ad hominem, someone argues that because a person has a bad character, we should not accept that person's claims. For instance, during the presidential campaign of 1800, John Adams was called "a fool, a gross hypocrite and an unprincipled oppressor." His rival, Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, was deemed "an uncivilized atheist, anti-American, a tool for the godless French." Accusations like these can easily foreclose on intelligent political discourse about what might make either candidate a good president.
Another illegitimate form of the ad hominem is the tu quoque, or "you, too" version, which is an attempt to discredit a person's claims because the person has failed to follow his or her own advice. The example of the overweight doctor prescribing weight loss falls into this category. Its use is unfair because, after all, there are good reasons for losing weight, and the fact that a doctor has not managed to heed her own advice should not dissuade others from trying to follow it.
The Cruise attack, on the other hand, exemplifies "poisoning the well," another brand of ad hominem attacks in which the character assault is launched before the listener has a chance to form his or her own opinion on a subject—in this case, Cruise's film. If successful, the reminder that Cruise is affiliated with Scientology will bias the listener against the movie. This partiality is unjustified, because Cruise's religious affiliation is not germane to his acting abilities or the entertainment value of his movie.
Fair Use
What types of ad hominems might then be justified? Walton argues that an ad hominem is valid when the claims made about a person's character or actions are relevant to the conclusions being drawn. Consider, for example, former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, who was caught on a wiretap arranging to hire a prostitute for $4,300. Because this behavior ran counter to Spitzer's anticorruption platform, its unveiling would prevent Spitzer from governing successfully; thus, criticizing this aspect of his character was relevant and fair. In an earlier scandal, in 1987, televangelist Jimmy Swaggart was seen at a motel with a prostitute. Because his behavior undercut his preaching and status as a Christian role model, a character attack based on this incident would have been spot-on.
In another case, when President Bill Clinton fibbed on national television about his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, accusations that he was a liar were not entirely unjust. Although a supporter might argue that Clinton's sex life was not directly relevant to his ability to govern, his ability to adhere to the truth could certainly be, and his willingness to lie on this occasion could call into question the veracity of his remarks on other subjects.
Of course, we should not discount everything any person says, no matter how badly he or she has been discredited. The fact that a person lies or behaves improperly on one occasion does not mean that he or she lies or behaves inappropriately all the time. Again, a critique of a person's character should not prevent further examination of the arguments at hand. After all, which position is right is usually independent of a person's character or conduct.
Being aware of how the ad hominem attack works can help us evaluate which instances of its use we should ignore and which we should consider. Ask yourself: How relevant is a political candidate's character or action to his or her ability to perform in office? How pertinent is any person's past or group affiliation to the claims that person makes or to that individual's expertise in a specific domain? If the character-based attacks are not relevant to these larger issues, then they are best ignored. Instead we should attend to what is really important: What is a person asserting? Why does he or she offer a particular view, and is the view defensible?
This story was originally printed with the title, "Character Attacks".
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Monday, June 2, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 60 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #187589 by tieInterceptor on June 2, 2008 at 10:34 am
fair use ad hominem?Islam is evil because, Mohamed aged 54, screwed a 9 year old...
mmmm , yeah I can see the point of the article.
Other Comments by tieInterceptor
3. Comment #187604 by BeyondBelief on June 2, 2008 at 10:55 am
I wish the author would have given practical, concrete examples of an acceptable ad hominem attack in response to an argument.
Exposing Eliot Spitzer's proclivities does not seem so much an ad hominem attack as it is "reporting on facts"
Now, if Eliot said in a debate, "No person who frequents prostitutes should be allowed to hold elective office," and his opponent said, "Well, Mr. Whoremonger, thank you for publicly submitting your resignation," I MIGHT be able to see the distinction.
However, the ad hominem or "to the man" fallacy is, by definition, a rhetorical, logical fallacy in which the point of argument is not addressed by the response. In my example above, the point of argument is directly addressed. Maybe using "whoremonger" is name-calling, but that's about as close to ad hominem as I can get here, and it again is not so much a distraction as a term of art to describe facts not in dispute.
Not a very good article, IMHO.
Other Comments by BeyondBelief
4. Comment #187607 by HandyGeek on June 2, 2008 at 11:03 am
If used with intellectual honesty, it should work. I like it. :D Other Comments by HandyGeek
5. Comment #187608 by epeeist on June 2, 2008 at 11:06 am
I can recommend Douglas Walton's "Informal Logic" which gives lots of good advice for argumentation. Other Comments by epeeist
6. Comment #187615 by AmericanGodless on June 2, 2008 at 11:32 am
I don't get it. The doctor says lose weight and the patient is concerned that doctor is herself overweight. The author says this is unfair personal criticism. But when a neighbor advises on lawn care, the author says it is relevant whether the neighbor's lawn is healthy. What's the difference? Why would "tu quoque" be fair in the latter case but not in the former? Other Comments by AmericanGodless
7. Comment #187623 by unmolested.altar.boy on June 2, 2008 at 11:47 am
My belief is that Ad Hominem is not Ad Hominem if the person making the claim can prove it.Then it becomes scientific theory, or perhaps a law.
Other Comments by unmolested.altar.boy
8. Comment #187631 by Cartomancer on June 2, 2008 at 11:59 am
The author has missed out one of the most important reasons for making ad hominem attacks - showing off. We often resort to ad hominems in order to demonstrate a puissant command of abusive yet amusing vocabulary - to show that we can, ex tempore, string together long chains of confusing latinate circumlocutions and impress both audience and victim alike with the exuberant creativeness of our vituperations. Particularly with our ability to viciously insult and excoriate without resorting to base crudeness.
Furthermore, an ad hominem attack can get across wonderfully the degree of disdain we feel for the target of said attack, his position, and what he stands for. It works well in showing that we are not going to give ground and will subject his arguments to the withering scorn they deserve. To an audience this indicates conviction of one's beliefs, to an opponent the likelihood he will not get an easy ride. If one's opponent uses trite and facile arguments, it is often much more effective to ridicule him than to answer him, because one implicitly credits arguments with validity by taking them seriously.
As a purely logical strategy, it often fails. But as a rhetorical strategy it can be among the most effective. The trivium rests on three pillars, and, as John of Salisbury would have said, it collapses unless you have them all.
Other Comments by Cartomancer
9. Comment #187636 by woodm on June 2, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Another illegitimate form of the ad hominem is the tu quoque, or "you, too" version, which is an attempt to discredit a person's claims because the person has failed to follow his or her own advice. The example of the overweight doctor prescribing weight loss falls into this category. Its use is unfair because, after all, there are good reasons for losing weight, and the fact that a doctor has not managed to heed her own advice should not dissuade others from trying to follow it.
In an earlier scandal, in 1987, televangelist Jimmy Swaggart was seen at a motel with a prostitute. Because his behavior undercut his preaching and status as a Christian role model, a character attack based on this incident would have been spot-on.
I'm not entirely sure I see the difference here. I'm POSITIVE that christians would apply the same logic of the doctor's situation to that of Jimmy Swaggart or Ted Haggart. The point has got to be that Jimmy Swaggart's teachings are bad irregardless of his lifestyle. His hypocrisy could be used in other arguments ("Athiests are less moral than christians." for example), but not the one put forth in the article above.
Other Comments by woodm
10. Comment #187641 by Barry Pearson on June 2, 2008 at 12:11 pm
BeyondBelief said: I wish the author would have given practical, concrete examples of an acceptable ad hominem attack in response to an argument.I am frequently subjected to ad hominem attacks. I publish information about a technical matter to do with digital photography, and attampts are made to undermine my statements by claiming that I paid by Adobe to say what I do:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/
If I were paid by Adobe, (I'm not), and couldn't support my statements, those would probably be acceptable ad hominem attacks. What is mainly important is not whether I am paid by Adobe but whether I can provide evidence to support my position. But even if I can, then the question of payment might still be relevant if it speaks to bias (rather than inaccuracy).
If you are relying on someone else, you not only want to evaluate whether they are making inaccurate statements, but also whether they are making accurate statements that are highly selective.
(I tend to be influenced by whether people provide references to support their statements, and by whether they post under their own name).
AmericanGodless said: The doctor says lose weight and the patient is concerned that doctor is herself overweight. The author says this is unfair personal criticism. But when a neighbor advises on lawn care, the author says it is relevant whether the neighbor's lawn is healthy. What's the difference? Why would "tu quoque" be fair in the latter case but not in the former?The fact that the doctor is overweight doesn't disprove the statement that it is unhealthy to be overweight, although it does say something about how easy it is to follow the doctor's advice. (It would be interesting to get the doctor's views on her own state of health).
The state of the neighbor's lawn provides support for the neighbor's views on lawn-care.
Other Comments by Barry Pearson
11. Comment #187645 by Peribolos on June 2, 2008 at 12:16 pm
John Adams was called "a fool, a gross hypocrite and an unprincipled oppressor." His rival, Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, was deemed "an uncivilized atheist, anti-American, a tool for the godless French."Nice to know that in 208 years of US history political views and language haven't changed that much.
Other Comments by Peribolos
12. Comment #187667 by Machinus on June 2, 2008 at 12:43 pm
This doesn't change any of the rules of logic. It's still wrong to consider the argumenter when thinking about an argument.Other Comments by Machinus
13. Comment #187701 by clodhopper on June 2, 2008 at 1:15 pm
I just called myself a right twat.....in the circumstances, seems like fair comment. Other Comments by clodhopper
14. Comment #187764 by Krystalline Apostate on June 2, 2008 at 2:59 pm
I think it was John Locke who stipulated that 1 of the only acceptable applications of the Ad Hominem was when the recipient was the originator of the theory under attack.Other Comments by Krystalline Apostate
15. Comment #187769 by Steven Mading on June 2, 2008 at 3:25 pm
12. Comment #187667 by Machinus on June 2, 2008 at 12:43 pm
This doesn't change any of the rules of logic. It's still wrong to consider the argumenter when thinking about an argument.
Unless the argumenter makes his character become a part of the argument, which was the whole point of the article. For example, "I'd make a better nominee for president than you, and here's why..." To counter such an argument, an ad-hominem attack would be right on target, and quite valid, as in "No, you wouldn't make a good candidate because you have a history of lying", or "No, you wouldn't make a good candidate because polls show that people really hate your personality and that would hurt your chances."
One of the most frustrating things we encounter here is when some person claims that his religion makes him more moral - and becomes angry when you provide "ad hominem" counterexamples.
Other Comments by Steven Mading
16. Comment #187771 by Shuggy on June 2, 2008 at 3:38 pm
6. Comment #187615 by AmericanGodless on June 2, 2008 at 11:32 amI don't get it. The doctor says lose weight and the patient is concerned that doctor is herself overweight. The author says this is unfair personal criticism. But when a neighbor advises on lawn care, the author says it is relevant whether the neighbor's lawn is healthy. What's the difference? Why would "tu quoque" be fair in the latter case but not in the former?
Because the health of the neighbour's lawn demonstrates that their lawn care advice works, at least on that lawn. The doctor's fatness does not demonstrate that fatness is healthy. If the doctor were giving advice on HOW to lose weight, her own inability to benefit from that advice would be relevant, but not compelling evidence that it was false.
In general, it is not ad hominem to attack a professional for behaving contrary to the principles of that profession, whatever else they do wrong. A doctor should not spread disease, a journalist should not write falsehoods, a police officer should not commit crimes, and attacks on them for doing these are not ad hominem.
Other Comments by Shuggy
17. Comment #187773 by AmericanGodless on June 2, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Barry Pearson: "The state of the neighbor's lawn provides support for the neighbor's views on lawn-care."I disagree. It may just say something about how easy it is to follow lawn care advice.
You trust the doctor more than the neighbor because you are assuming that the doctor is educated in the matter of health and weight, while the neighbor does not have a degree in horticulture. You are also judging the advice to lose weight as probably valid because of your own previous knowledge. This is OK, but recognize when you are bringing in outside assumptions (which may be incorrect). Without these additional assumptions, the arguments are equivalent.
EDIT: Shuggy's comment above leads me to conclude that the assumption here is the the neighbor's lawn looks good (rather than bad). My assumption was the opposite. I agree that, if his lawn looks good, his advice is more likely to be good, too. In that case, it's not ad hominem to look at his lawn, it is checking the result of the neighbor's experiment. If the lawn is bad, you need to ask why so, (if he's so knowledgeable).
Other Comments by AmericanGodless
18. Comment #187778 by WilliamP on June 2, 2008 at 3:59 pm
I don't think this idea is new at all. Most people that I know who have studied rhetoric know that most fallacies are not really fallacious if they are justifiably related to the argument. The real question is whether the evidence for an argument supports the conclusion.As in the article's example, if Bill Clinton were to argue that he is not a liar, then evidence of his past lying would negate that claim. Thus, the ad hominem argument is relevant in that case.
The tu quoque argument may be valid if one person advises another person in the same situation as him to take a course of action that he hasn't taken. For example, if the fat doctor tells the patient to lose weight because he has diabetes, criticising the doctor for being overweight may be valid if the doctor also has the same type of diabetes as the patient. The doctor would need a good explanation for taking a different action. In the lawn example, the neighbor's crappy lawn is relevant if he is giving advice about a lawn that the listener knows the adviser applies to his own, similar lawn.
Poisoning the well is mostly invalid, but in a case like the Tom Cruise movie in the article it could be valid. If Tom were to make a documentary that claimed to be an objective outsider's view of Scientology, it is certainly fine to argue that current Scientologists as a whole cannot make movies about the religion from an outsider's perspective. His religious affiliation would clearly negate his claim, and thus it would be relevant.
In all these examples, what really matters is the claim and how the argument is used to support or refute it. An argument is only a fallacy if its conclusion does not follow from its premises, if it just assumes its conclusion, or if it has a false premise. I think most people who study logic and argument already know this.
Other Comments by WilliamP
19. Comment #187782 by Barry Pearson on June 2, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Machinus said: This doesn't change any of the rules of logic. It's still wrong to consider the argumenter when thinking about an argument.How many interesting and/or useful arguments are purely logical arguments? Very few, I believe.
Typical arguments are more like trying to draw conclusions from imperfect evidence of which each party has only a subset. This is more like a court of law, or a scientific arena, rather than some exercise in reasoning from agreed premises.
Knowledge (or guesswork!) about the people providing the evidence is often a factor. It may be taken too far, for example by drawing attention to facts that don't relate to the topic. But trying to judge whether this person would lie, or be sloppy with the evidence, or be accurate but selective, can be very important when it isn't possible to develop a comprehensive baseline of agreed information beforehand.
Some types of fallacy are still wrong to use even in this more complicated sort of argument. There is a still a difference between is / ought, and between correlation / cause. But information about the person's motives and past history can be relevant.
Other Comments by Barry Pearson
20. Comment #187789 by Dhamma on June 2, 2008 at 4:45 pm
#2 tieInterceptor:Haha, yeah how bizarre isn't that? And you're DEFINITELY not allowed to call Mohammed a paedophile even if nine is clearly below the age of consent of any country. And even worse, he met her when she was only six years old! He was over 50 and she was six! How can he not be considered a paedophile? I think we should mock their stupid religion more from this aspect.
Other Comments by Dhamma
21. Comment #187796 by Aidan86 on June 2, 2008 at 5:03 pm
The Spitzer and Clinton examples were relevant - anti-corruption legislation put in place by a corrupt man is likely to be ineffective because it could likely be designed to hide his own corruption. And if a president is shown to have lied, it could put their dedication to the truth into question.But I don't see how the Swaggart argument is relevant. That's like the fat doctor. Just because he didn't live up to his own ideals of fidelity does not mean that those ideals aren't worth striving for. Sure you can attack him based on his transgressions, but you can't attack his message or argument.
Other Comments by Aidan86
22. Comment #187798 by mordacious1 on June 2, 2008 at 5:14 pm
I think this guy too a look at Karl Rove's playbook.Other Comments by mordacious1
23. Comment #187803 by Madphatcat on June 2, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Where do I begin with this sorry excuse for an article? Yvonne Raley is a Nazi, anything she says cannot be trusted. Also, I have met her in person, and let me tell you, she sure stinks! Literally, she smells bad. No one who smells that bad ever says anything right! My uncle Joe taught me that - he spent his life studying wrongness and odor levels. He also funnily enough disproved the link between smoking and cancer! He smoked 4 packs a day and died during sex at age 102. Suck on that scienticians!Other Comments by Madphatcat
24. Comment #187806 by robotaholic on June 2, 2008 at 5:51 pm
so a non ad hominem attack like "you're not as experienced as I am to be president" or "at least I've completed ONE term as Senator" would carry more wight than an ad hominem attack such as "I personally don't like you even though you may be a good leader and be able to get things done"- at least I voted logically Other Comments by robotaholic
25. Comment #187807 by ~manic-depressive on June 2, 2008 at 5:59 pm
If one's opponent uses trite and facile arguments, it is often much more effective to ridicule him than to answer him, because one implicitly credits arguments with validity by taking them seriously.
Very good point, Cartomancer !
Other Comments by ~manic-depressive
26. Comment #187810 by MrEmpirical on June 2, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Steve Mading said:Unless the argumenter makes his character become a part of the argument, which was the whole point of the article. For example, "I'd make a better nominee for president than you, and here's why..." To counter such an argument, an ad-hominem attack would be right on target, and quite valid, as in "No, you wouldn't make a good candidate because you have a history of lying", or "No, you wouldn't make a good candidate because polls show that people really hate your personality and that would hurt your chances."
Steve, I don't think your example demonstrates acceptable ad hominem, because, in the the example, the protagonist argues against the candidate by using evidence to dismiss the candidate's claim. The fact that the evidence is related to the candidate is neither here nor there. The protagonist is still addressing the argument; he is not trying to dismiss the argument merely by attacking the candidate. Rather, he attacks the argument, and it just so happens that the candidate is attacked in the process. I think there's a big difference.
Other Comments by MrEmpirical
27. Comment #187811 by Jeff.Satterley on June 2, 2008 at 6:06 pm
The argument that somehow you can't argue the doctor's point about losing weight, but you can argue against Spitzer's stance is just ridiculous. The author comparing apples and oranges.I think the author is confusing an argument against two different assertions. You can argue against Spitzer saying something to the effect of "I believe soliciting prostitutes for sex is wrong" because it is about his own beliefs, and his actions are relevant, since rational people are expected to act in accordance with their beliefs (to certain degrees in different circumstances, but that's not entirely important).
These type of epistemological and moral arguments have more to do with evidence than sound logical arguments. When a person's character are relevant, they can obviously can be used to refute a claim about beliefs/values/etc.
However, the statement "Soliciting prostitutes is wrong" cannot be argued this way. It says nothing about Gov. Spitzer, Gov. Paterson and the rest of the New York State Executive branch (Side note: I'm a former NY resident, what the hell is going on there since I left?!). When making a logical argument, ad hominem arguments are always a fallacy.
Other Comments by Jeff.Satterley
28. Comment #187812 by Brian English on June 2, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Cartomancer, I find your abuse of Latinate phrases execrable.Other Comments by Brian English
29. Comment #187830 by sent2null on June 2, 2008 at 7:43 pm
I held my tongue long enough...clodhopper, message 13
what on Earth is that in your profile picture???
It looks like a person in a giant black rubber suit with a massive distended belly. If that is what I am looking at.....why?????
I fear I will have difficulty getting to bed now that I've seen it.
Other Comments by sent2null
30. Comment #187841 by born-again-atheist on June 2, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Right, I disagree - Tom Cruise being a scientologist is more then enough reason to boycott a film.That said, I loosely agree with the rest.
Other Comments by born-again-atheist
31. Comment #187851 by Skutter on June 2, 2008 at 9:21 pm
I can recommend Douglas Walton's "Informal Logic" which gives lots of good advice for argumentation.
No it doesn't.
Other Comments by Skutter
32. Comment #187901 by Peribolos on June 3, 2008 at 2:20 am
Clearly the doctor's advice is open to a kind of ad hominem attack.
If the doctor believed that the most important thing in life was to be healthy, she would be thin. Instead if she has made a choice in favour of not being healthy it suggests that although she may genuinely believe being healthy is a good thing she thinks the freedom to eat cake is more important.
Moreover an actor's scientology is pertinent to the entertainment value of his movies, as anyone who has seen John Travolta in Battlefield Earth will know.
Other Comments by Peribolos
33. Comment #187902 by Christopher Davis on June 3, 2008 at 2:20 am
I give this article an "A" for effort by a "C-" for execution.
While by definition an ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy, not every personal critique qualifies as an ad hominem attack. The problem is telling the difference between a legitimate and relevant character flaw and a cheap-shot that has no bearing on the topic under discussion.
As many of you have commented, I don't think the author's examples help clarify the matter. If a fat doctor gives me advice regarding weight-loss, the relevant issue is not that the doctor is fat...it is that he/she is a doctor. I know lots of people with attractive physiques who are ignorant when it comes to good nutrition and exercise principles.
As far as my lawn goes...if I have a neighbor who is constantly working on his lawn and it looks good, then I will be inclined to take his advice. If his lawn looks like shit, I won't. Whether this person is a ninth-grade dropout who only reads the Bible or the head groundskeeper at Augusta National is irrelevant.
Evaluation of an ad hominem attack boils down to ascertaining its relevancy.
Other Comments by Christopher Davis
34. Comment #187942 by Christopher Davis on June 3, 2008 at 4:27 am
"But I don't see how the Swaggart argument is relevant. That's like the fat doctor. Just because he didn't live up to his own ideals of fidelity does not mean that those ideals aren't worth striving for. Sure you can attack him based on his transgressions, but you can't attack his message or argument."---Aidan86
Not exactly. The doctor may not care about being fat. Jimmy Swaggert, on the other hand, made a career out of declaring his devotion to his theology. As for whether or not the "ideals" expressed by Jimmy Swaggert are worth striving for... that is a matter of opinion.
Other Comments by Christopher Davis
35. Comment #187948 by Barry Pearson on June 3, 2008 at 4:34 am
epeeist said: I can recommend Douglas Walton's "Informal Logic" which gives lots of good advice for argumentation.I haven't read the whole of his "Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach", but I have read an excerpt here:
Skutter responded: No it doesn't.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521713803/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link
This does something very useful: it identifies types of dialogue and argument, with different goals. "Personal quarrel"; "(forensic) debate"; "persuasion dialogue" / "critical discussion"; "inquiry"; and "negotiation dialogue". Without knowing the goals and the type of dialogue, it is difficult to judge what is valid (or useful) and what is not.
I have often said "I am in the solution business not the debating business". I probably meant "I normally take part in inquiries rather than dialogues or debates". But sometimes I have to use persuasion, and I then exploit "mere personal authority" if I have to, therefore (probably validly) getting exposed to ad hominem attacks. One of my mottos is "Learn the rules then play to win". Sometimes it REALLY is important to win.
Other Comments by Barry Pearson
36. Comment #187988 by j.mills on June 3, 2008 at 5:39 am
This article just seems like a statement of the bleedin' obvious.
After 9/11, someone told Bush that "This is the time for wisdom, not power." I thought that had merit; didn't matter in the slightest that it was Saddam who said it, but that was used as argument to dismiss it. (Who needs wisdom anyway?)
You concentrate on what's being said, not who's saying it, otherwise you end up with squalid squabbles at Prime Minister's Question Time and tin-pot 3rd-world dictators 'disappearing' their dissidents. I might enjoy it when Hitchens derides his opponents, but it isn't really adding to the debate. One's aspiration should always be to address the argument, not the speaker.
Other Comments by j.mills
37. Comment #188063 by nalfeshnee on June 3, 2008 at 7:30 am
A movie aficionado pans the latest Tom Cruise flick because Cruise is a Scientologist.
Putting the focus on the arguer or person being discussed can distract us from the issues that matter.
Well, for my money, the fact that Cruise is a Scientologist is way more important than any FSMing Hollywood flick.
Other Comments by nalfeshnee
38. Comment #188145 by scooternyc on June 3, 2008 at 9:15 am
I find it curious that through the past few months that, unless mistaken, not one story has appeared about the Barack Obama fiasco and the loud noise regarding religion, it's implications and judgement of his nomination.
I find it a level of hypocrisy unfounded on other sites that debate this issue of religion in the public square, that this site has not had the guts to address this issue.
Should we not be surprised when conventions such as AAI 2007, CFI's November 2007 convention and others WILL NOT address the issue because Obama is their nominee they are in the tank for - even Dershowitz made this observation to no applause or support in November, save for myself and a few others at both conventions.
It merely reveals that this is not a true understanding of human liberty advanced to all people while it continues to be politicized, justified for others, negated to the rest.
Other Comments by scooternyc
39. Comment #188147 by al-rawandi on June 3, 2008 at 9:17 am
scooternyc,
You mean Dershowitz the plagarist, or are you referring to a different Dershowitz?
Other Comments by al-rawandi
40. Comment #188153 by j.mills on June 3, 2008 at 9:25 am
Al-rawandi, is that supposed to be some ironic ad-hominem gag or did you not read the article above? How would it be relevant to scooternyc's comment if Dershowitz was a plagiarist? Other Comments by j.mills
41. Comment #188157 by al-rawandi on June 3, 2008 at 9:31 am
j.mills,
I read the article. I have criticized him before for his Alan Dershowitz man crush. But thanks for keeping everyone on topic for these threads, what would we do without it?
Other Comments by al-rawandi
42. Comment #188262 by Stafford Gordon on June 3, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I've commented previously that the personal attack weakens the argument. This applies to Richard Dawkins as much as anyone; in fact, especially to him.Hero worship is also a thing which I deplore; it's demeaning.
"No More Heroes" please.
Other Comments by Stafford Gordon
43. Comment #188273 by Steven Mading on June 3, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Comment by j.mills:
One's aspiration should always be to address the argument, not the speaker.
The point of the article is that there are instances where a valid counterargument that does address the argument has the side effect of also addressing the speaker. When that happens, it is incorrect to call it an ad-hominem fallacy, and that in such situations one should be allowed to make such an argument.
I concur.
All too often moderators on forums don't get this. They assume that all ad-hominems are fallicious without bothering to examine whether or not the personal attack was actually an important component of the argument being made - sometimes it is. The frustrating thing about it is that they refuse to recognize that such situations can exist, and condescendingly repeat the false mantra that all valid arguments can always be made without resorting to ad-hominem. No, actually, they can't ALL be made that way. It would be nice if they could, but in reality there do exist valid ad-hominem arguments when someone has made the mistake of making his own character be part of the topic at hand.
Other Comments by Steven Mading
44. Comment #188276 by Nova on June 3, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Nice to know that in 208 years of US history political views and language haven't changed that much.Unfortunately, they have gone backward. Nowadays it is inconceivable that a non-religious person could become president (deism is the only kind of non-religious theism (the motto of the World Union of Deists is "God Gave Us Reason, Not Religion") and was virtually the only kind before Darwin, for obvious reasons).
Other Comments by Nova
45. Comment #188295 by GSP on June 3, 2008 at 7:42 pm
I am glad this article found its way on to this site. I fear many individuals on this site view argumentation as a sort of black and white or right and wrong process. In reality, rarely is an individual either wholly wrong or right.For example, in the main forum on this site I began a thread asking people to name what they felt were the weakest "atheist" arguments; that is, the weakest arguments the atheists often featured on this site use. I proposed Sam Harris's argument that the motivation behind suicide bombing has little to nothing to do with political circumstances and almost, or everything, to do with the bomber's religion. I argued that because Sam Harris, because he had, at best, a bachelors in philosophy when he first made that argument, was in no position to make such a statement. In other words, because he was not, say, a political scientist, he should not be making such arguments. Someone quickly dismissed my comment as an ad hominem attack and considered it no further.
Was it an ad hominem attack? In the broadest definition, yes. But as this article makes clear, there are justified ad hominem attacks. For instance, you would, hopefully, not take the medical advice of a stranger on the street as seriously as a doctor, i.e., someone who studies medicine. Why not? Well, because the stranger is not a doctor. This is an ad hominem attack, yet, one that I think most of us would agree is justified. It argues that the stranger's character is somehow lacking and we should therefore not accept her opinion.
Good article. Thanks.
Other Comments by GSP
46. Comment #188297 by RightWingAtheist on June 3, 2008 at 7:54 pm
They really should have hired Hitchens to write on this subject.
I think the author is wrong about Tom Cruise. I don't assume he makes bad movies because he is a scientologist.
I assume his movies will be bad because he is a bad actor who signs on for idiotic scripts.
When I consider Scientology, and all of his related babblings, I don't want to see his movies because I think he is an ASSHOLE.
Other Comments by RightWingAtheist
47. Comment #188346 by Barry Pearson on June 4, 2008 at 1:46 am
scooternyc said: I find it curious that through the past few months that, unless mistaken, not one story has appeared about the Barack Obama fiasco and the loud noise regarding religion, it's implications and judgement of his nomination.I'm speaking from a country where it would be bad campaigning to say much about god, so I don't understand the nuances in the US.
But here is a 5 minute video of Barack Obama that made me question my pre-conceptions about US politicians. I was so surprised that I made it one of my YouTube favourites. I recommend it to all here; I won't give the game away:
"Barack Obama on Religion"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jg8lCLumByw
Other Comments by Barry Pearson
48. Comment #188418 by irate_atheist on June 4, 2008 at 5:02 am
47. Comment #188346 by Barry Pearson -
Fascinating. A most interesting find. I commend it to the house.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
49. Comment #188428 by hungarianelephant on June 4, 2008 at 5:15 am
Barry Pearson - Good find.It seems to have been fairly heavily cut. Does anyone have a source which shows that it's not misleading?
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
50. Comment #188437 by BarelyEvolved on June 4, 2008 at 5:24 am
Ad hominem works because people are more likely to believe the person they trust, especially where an argument cannot be taken on its own merit.For instance, if 10,000 laymen voted on an argument for/against the existence of wormholes, argued For by Adolf Hitler, and Against by Winston Churchill, the laymen, having no grounding in the subject, would generally fall on the side of the trusted party (both arguments having equal logical appeal on the surface but requiring subject knowledge to appreciate deeper inconsistencies, inaccuracies or untruths).
It's a shame that politics is mostly debated (especially in the UK) by ad hominem arguments, and the actual details never truly presented to the people. I've tried looking at number10.gov.uk, labour.org.uk, et cetera for presentation and analysis of the costs, benefits, challenges and so on of proposals such as ID cards, but in the end I had to resort to being against a proposal by a paranoid, power-hungry party.
Other Comments by BarelyEvolved
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #187584 by Steven Mading on June 2, 2008 at 10:28 am
Good point the article makes - and it's a simple one. Now, if only the moderators of forums (this one too, sadly) would understand this concept. Ad-hominem comments are not always unrelated to the topic and therefore are not always fallacies. To assume that any ad-hominem comment must necessarily be disallowed in all cases is to disallow some good, correct arguments from being made. To claim that all possible valid arguments can always be phrased in a fashion that doesn't include any ad-homenem comments is false. Sometimes a person's character *IS* a relevant part of the argument.Other Comments by Steven Mading