Ad hominem: Difference between revisions
→Tu quoque: expanding |
|||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
An ad hominem fallacy occurs when one attacks the character of an interlocutor in an attempt to refute their argument. Insulting someone is not necessarily an instance of an ad hominem fallacy. For example, if one supplies sufficient reasons to reject an interlocutor's argument and adds a slight character attack at the end, this character attack is not necessarily fallacious. Whether it is fallacious depends on whether or not the insult is used as a reason against the interlocutor's argument. An ad hominem occurs when an attack on the interlocutor's character functions as a response to an interlocutor's argument/claim.{{sfn|Arp|Barbone|Bruce|2019|p=83}} |
An ad hominem fallacy occurs when one attacks the character of an interlocutor in an attempt to refute their argument. Insulting someone is not necessarily an instance of an ad hominem fallacy. For example, if one supplies sufficient reasons to reject an interlocutor's argument and adds a slight character attack at the end, this character attack is not necessarily fallacious. Whether it is fallacious depends on whether or not the insult is used as a reason against the interlocutor's argument. An ad hominem occurs when an attack on the interlocutor's character functions as a response to an interlocutor's argument/claim.{{sfn|Arp|Barbone|Bruce|2019|p=83}} |
||
== Non-fallacious types == |
|||
The use of the term ''ad hominem'' to refer to types of valid arguments is generally only encountered in specialist philosophical usage or in pre-20th Century usages.{{sfn|Merriam-Webster|2019|loc=note1}} |
|||
=== Argument from commitment === |
|||
In philosophical usage ''ad hominem'' may refer to a dialectical strategy involving the exclusive utilization of the beliefs, convictions, and assumptions of those holding the position being argued against, i.e., arguments constructed on the basis of what other people hold to be true. |
|||
=== Attack on authority === |
|||
When a statement is challenged by making an ''ad hominem'' attack on its author, it is important to draw a distinction between whether the statement in question was ''an argument'' or ''a statement of fact'' (''testimony''). In the latter case the issues of the credibility of the person making the statement may be crucial.{{cn|date=January 2020}} |
|||
== Criticism as a fallacy == |
== Criticism as a fallacy == |
||
Revision as of 07:32, 9 January 2020
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
The term ad hominem is applied to several different types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. The valid types of ad hominem arguments are generally only encountered in specialist philosophical usage and typically refer to the dialectical strategy of using the target's own beliefs and arguments against them while not assenting to the validity of those beliefs and arguments.
History
The various types of ad hominem arguments have been known in the West since at least the ancient Greeks. Aristotle, in his work Sophistical Refutations, detailed the fallaciousness of putting the questioner but not the argument under scrutiny.[1]
Many examples of ancient non-fallacious ad hominem arguments are preserved in the works of the Pyrrhonist philosopher Sextus Empiricus. In these arguments the concepts and assumptions of the opponents are used as part of a dialectical strategy against the opponents to demonstrate the unsoundness of their own arguments and assumptions. In this way the arguments are to the person (ad hominem) but without attacking the properties of the individuals making the arguments.[2] This kind of argument is also known as "argument from commitment." Italian polymath Galileo Galilei and British philosopher John Locke also examined the argument from commitment form of the ad hominem argument, meaning examining an argument on the basis of whether it stands true to the principles of the person carrying the argument. In the mid 19th century the modern understanding of the term ad hominem started to take shape, with the broad definition given by English logician Richard Whately. According to Whately, ad hominem arguments were "addressed to the peculiar circumstances, character, avowed opinions, or past conduct of the individual."[3]
Except within specialized philosophical usages, the modern usage of the term ad hominem signifies a straight attack at the character and ethos of a person, in an attempt to refute its argument.[4]
Terminology
The latin phase argumentum ad hominem stands for "argument against the person".[5]
The terms ad mulierem and ad feminam have been used specifically when the person receiving the criticism is female.[6]
Types of Ad hominem arguments
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized among informal fallacies, more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.[7]
Ad hominem fallacies can be separated in four different types: Tu quoque, Circumstantial, Guilt by association and abusive ad hominem.
Tu quoque
Ad hominem tu quoque (literally: "You also") refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. In particular, if Source A criticizes the actions of Source B, a tu quoque response is that Source A has acted in the same way. This argument is invalid because it does not disprove the premise; if the premise is true then Source A may be a hypocrite or even changed his mind, but this does not make the statement less credible from a logical perspective. Indeed, Source A may be in a position to provide personal testimony to support the argument. A common example, taken from real life in politics, is when government is accused for various over the top expenses by the opposition and answer backs reminding the record on expenses of the previous government.[8] So tu quoque is like tango. It takes to persons or parties accusing each other for the same kind of misbehaving.[9]
As with other types of ad hominem, tu quoque can have a nonfallacious use.[10]
Circumstantial
Circumstantial ad hominem points out that someone is in circumstances (ie job, wealth, property, relations) such that they are disposed to take a particular position. It constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. As with other types of ad hominem attack, circumstantial attack could be fallacious or not. It could be fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument invalid; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source). But it also may be a sound argument, if the premises are correct and the bias is relevant to the argument.[11]
A simple example is: a father may tell his daughter not to start smoking because she will damage her health, and she may point out that he is or was a smoker. This does not alter the fact that smoking might cause various diseases. Her father's inconsistency is not a proper reason to reject his claim.[12]
Philosopher and pundit on informal fallacies Douglas N. Walton argues that a circumstantial ad hominem arguement can be non-fallacious. This could be the case when someone (A) attacks the personality of another person (B) making an argument (a) while the personality of B is relevant to argument a, ie B talks as an authority figure. To illustrate this reasoning, Walton gives the example of a witness at a trial, if he had been caught lying and cheating in his own life, should the jury take his word for granted? Not on Walton's watch.[13]
Guilt by association
Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy if the argument attacks a source because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.[14]
This form of the argument is as follows:
- Source S makes claim C.
- Group G, which is currently viewed negatively by the recipient, also makes claim C.
- Therefore, source S is viewed by the recipient of the claim as associated to the group G and inherits how negatively viewed it is.
An example of this fallacy could be "My opponent for office just received an endorsement from the Puppy Haters Association. Is that the sort of person you would want to vote for?"
Abusive ad hominem
This forth type of ad hominem fallacy is associated with an attack to the character of the person carrying an arguement. This kind of argument, besides usually being fallacious, is also counter productive as a proper dialogue is hard to achieve after such an attack.[15][16]
An ad hominem fallacy occurs when one attacks the character of an interlocutor in an attempt to refute their argument. Insulting someone is not necessarily an instance of an ad hominem fallacy. For example, if one supplies sufficient reasons to reject an interlocutor's argument and adds a slight character attack at the end, this character attack is not necessarily fallacious. Whether it is fallacious depends on whether or not the insult is used as a reason against the interlocutor's argument. An ad hominem occurs when an attack on the interlocutor's character functions as a response to an interlocutor's argument/claim.[17]
Non-fallacious types
The use of the term ad hominem to refer to types of valid arguments is generally only encountered in specialist philosophical usage or in pre-20th Century usages.[18]
Argument from commitment
In philosophical usage ad hominem may refer to a dialectical strategy involving the exclusive utilization of the beliefs, convictions, and assumptions of those holding the position being argued against, i.e., arguments constructed on the basis of what other people hold to be true.
Attack on authority
When a statement is challenged by making an ad hominem attack on its author, it is important to draw a distinction between whether the statement in question was an argument or a statement of fact (testimony). In the latter case the issues of the credibility of the person making the statement may be crucial.[citation needed]
Criticism as a fallacy
Canadian academic and author Douglas N. Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[19] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.
The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning (discussing facts about the speaker or author relative to the value of his statements) is essential to understanding certain moral issues due to the connection between individual persons and morality (or moral claims), and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning (involving facts beyond dispute or clearly established) of philosophical naturalism.[20]
See also
- "And you are lynching Negroes"
- Appeal to authority
- Appeal to emotion
- Appeal to motive
- Association fallacy
- Bulverism
- Character assassination
- Discrediting tactic
- Ergo decedo
- Fair Game (Scientology)
- Fake news
- Fundamental attribution error
- Gaslighting
- Graham's hierarchy of disagreement
- Hostile witness
- Negative campaigning
- Poisoning the well
- Presumption of guilt
- Race card
- Red herring
- Reputation
- Shooting the messenger
- Smear campaign
- Straw man
- Tone policing
- The Art of Being Right
- Tu quoque
- Whataboutism
References
- ^ Tindale 2007, p. 82.
- ^ Walton 2001, p. 207-209; Wong 2017, p. 49.
- ^ Walton 2001, pp. 208–210.
- ^ Walton 2001, p. 210.
- ^ Tindale 2007, p. 91.
- ^ Olivesi 2010; Sommers 1991.
- ^ Walton 2008, p. 190; Bowell & Kemp 2010, pp. 201–213; Copi 1986, pp. 112–113.
- ^ Tindale 2007, pp. 94–96.
- ^ Wrisley 2019, pp. 88–89.
- ^ Wrisley 2019, pp. 89.
- ^ Walton 1998, pp. 18–21; Wrisley 2019, pp. 77–78.
- ^ Walton 2001, p. 211.
- ^ Walton 2001, p. 213.
- ^ Walton 1998, pp. 18–21.
- ^ Tindale 2007, pp. 92–93.
- ^ Hansen 2019, 1. The core fallacies.
- ^ Arp, Barbone & Bruce 2019, p. 83.
- ^ Merriam-Webster 2019, note1.
- ^ Walton 2008, p. 170.
- ^ Taylor 1995, p. 34-60.
Sources
- Arp, Robert; Barbone, Steven; Bruce, Michael (2019). Bad Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Fallacies n Western Philosophy. Wiley Blackwell. ISBN 9781119167907.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - Bowell, Tracy; Kemp, Gary (2010). Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-47183-1.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - Copi, Irving M. (1986). Informal Logic. Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-02-324940-2.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - Hansen, Hans (2019). "Fallacies". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
{{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - Merriam-Webster (2019). "Definition of Ad Hominem". Retrieved 2020-01-08.
{{cite web}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - Olivesi, Aurélie (2010-04-05). "L'interrogation sur la compétence politique en 2007 : une question de genre ?". Quaderni (in French) (72): 59–74. doi:10.4000/quaderni.486. ISSN 0987-1381.
{{cite journal}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - Sommers, Christina (March 1991). "ARGUMENTUM AD FEMINAM". Journal of Social Philosophy. 22 (1): 5–19. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.1991.tb00016.x. ISSN 0047-2786.
{{cite journal}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - Taylor, Charles (1995). "Explanation and Practical Reason". Philosophical Arguments. Harvard University Press. pp. 34–60. ISBN 9780674664760.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - Tindale, Christopher W. (22 January 2007). Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-46184-9.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - Walton, Douglas N. (1998). Ad Hominem Arguments. University of Alabama Press. ISBN 978-0-8173-0922-0.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - Walton, Douglas N. (2001). "Argumentation Schemes and Historical Origins of the Circumstantial Ad Hominem Argument" (PDF). Argumentation (15): 207–221, .
{{cite journal}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) - Walton, Douglas N. (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge University Press.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - Wong, Andrew David (2017). Unmitigated Skepticism: The Nature and Scope of Pyrrhonism (PDF) (Thesis). University of California.
{{cite thesis}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - Wrisley, George (2019). "Ad Hominem: Circumstantial". In Robert Arp; Steven Barbone; Michael Bruce (eds.). Bad Arguements. Wiley Blackwell. pp. 77–82.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help)
External links
| Formal |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Informal |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
