Talk:Ad hominem

Precision

I moved the opening definition to something more conventional rather than the 'Stuff I made up in the schoolyard' definition that was there before. Plus, it was contradictory. It's obvious that you can have an ad hominem argument that isn't strictly a response to a different argument. The later examples (which include citation) were contradicting this point. Has anybody got anything scholarly? I can only find pop-philosophy references. 203.129.44.15 (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just read through it again, and it's still pretty bad. There are entire sections which do not cite an authority and read like 'Stuff I made up in the schoolyard'. 203.129.44.15 (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the repetition and the items which contradicted the sourced statements. Does anybody have a better source than Randi.org? 203.129.44.15 (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Somebody blanked a cited comment and replaced it with an unverified claim. I cleaned up some of the language, though a lot of it still reads like original research. 203.129.44.15 (talk) 08:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Argument that there no ad hominem fallacy

According to Wikipedia Fallacy, "By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority)" (direct quote). And, a previous edition of this page did indeed state that ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Thus, the claim that ad hominem has become something other than a logical fallacy cannot be claimed to be a "case-closed", and should not be presented as such on the main page (!).24.143.68.244 (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I take the point that not all arguments 'to the person' are fallacious. In my experience, in science, arguments 'to the person' divert the us from the evidence. I suggest that 'ad hominem' is useful as a label for arguments that divert from the evidence. 72.139.18.106 (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)David Schneider

David Hitchcock presents an argument that there is no ad hominem fallacy: http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~hitchckd/adhominemissa.htm

Should the case against considering ad hominem as fallacious be included in the ad hominem entry?

Adam Geffen 13:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A fallacy is a pattern of reason that it always or least most commonly wrong. I haven't looked at the link, but this means that there will be instances of the use of the fallacy of ad hominem which aren't fallacious but are actually valid. This will be the case with many other fallacies as well. -- Grumpyyoungman01 00:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A fallacy is faulty reasoning, that is "drawing wrong conclusions". And AFAICS, the only time one could speak of an "ad hominem fallacy" is when an ad hominem argument, which in itself is not fallacious, is either presented or taken to disprove an argument. And Hitchcock's claim seems to be that this does not occur, or at least not often enough to justify a label, except in made up textbook examples, and that most if not all so-called "ad hominem fallacies" are not fallacies at all but perfectly valid "ad hominem arguments". --62.226.12.183 (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

They use a wrong definition of fallacy: “By definition, a fallacy is a mistake in reasoning, a mistake which occurs with some frequency in real arguments and which is characteristically deceptive." - A fallacy is not always a mistake in reasoning, as the definition I put forward above demonstrates. Grumpyyoungman01 00:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(nods) I agree the argument presented by Hitchcock hinges on the definition of "fallacy". It is not clear to me that they use a wrong definition of fallacy. For example the Oxford English Dictionary defines fallacy as: "A deceptive or misleading argument, a sophism. In Logic esp. a flaw, material or formal, which vitiates a syllogism; any of the species or types to which such flaws are reducible." Moreover they didn't simply make up a new definition for fallacy. Rather, they relied on Govier's summary of fallacy in western philosophy. (Though, I have not read the Govier article so I can't evaluate its merit.) Even if we assume arguendo that a fallacy could be valid in some cases, then Hitchcock's work is still noteworthy vis-a-vis this entry because it presents an illustration of when ad hominem is valid. Also Hitchcock's work does not stand alone. As Hitchcock notes, Brinton presented a defense of ad hominem as valid in some contexts: Brinton, A. (1985). A rhetorical view of the ad hominem. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 63, 50-63. It seems worth mentioning, at least briefly, the gist of these works and their cites. Adam Geffen 14:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary definition seems to define a special case of fallacy, the sophism, an intentional or designed fallacy.--62.226.12.183 (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you add a couple of paragraphs and maybe an example under a heading and summarise the article (with references). Be bold! and if someone doesn't like it we can sort it out here. Grumpyyoungman01 06:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right that argumentum ad hominem is an argument that diverts from the evidence. However, there is already a label for fallacious arguments that divert attention from the evidence: red herring fallacies. Argumentum ad hominem is merely a special case of a red herring. --7Kim (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

An argument that diverts from the evidence is not a fallacy but a diversion. It only is a fallacy if this diversion is taken or presented as the refutation of another argument. --62.226.12.183 (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Those times when arguments are "valid", they're not fallacies. Fallacies are compelling, but not "valid". Ad hominem is a fallacy. A "valid" ad hominem suffers from the fallacy of equivocation because the word "valid" is being used in both syllogistics and in law. To say "fred is a liar " is not in and of itself fallacious. It is fallacious to say "Fred told me 2+2=4 and I know that Fred is a liar therefore 2+2 does not equal 4." It is also fallacious to say "Fred told me 2+2=5 and I know Fred is a liar therefore 2+2 does not equal 5." Although compelling, it is not "valid" that 2+2=5 is false because Fred is a liar. This is both a red herring and ad hominem. this is always a fallacy as being a liar doesn't "prove" anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.29.209 (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ad hominem is a type of argument and not a fallacy. It might become a fallacy if it leads one to draw wrong conclusions, but, as Hitchcock argues, this does not occur in real life but only in made up textbook examples like the one presented above. And no one falls for or dares to present something like the given example. And only if actually someone would fall for it or present it as a valid argument it would be a fallacy. --62.226.12.183 (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that classic logic deals with true and false which leaves ad hominem as a fallacy. However in fuzzy logic it would be a valid form of argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.80.79 (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite troubled to see that the idea that there is no ad hominem fallacy has been injected into this article. The way that this idea is presented basically argues that because a person with personal deficiencies *could* also be wrong on that issue, the idea of an ad hominem fallacy itself is not foolproof and may not exist. IMO, this is nothing less than an insidious attempt to undermine the argument against one of the most prevalent logic errors today. In doing this, I would argue that the author(s) make a fundamental error in logic (if not simply a disingenuous argument) around the idea that "correlation does not imply causation," essentially arguing because sometimes correlation and causation align - all notions of an ad hominem fallacy should be viewed with some suspicion. The reality is, of course, that the inconsistent causal relationship between a person's beliefs and the merit of their stance on an issue is to be expected! The whole notion of an ad hominem fallacy is that there is no consistent and/or guaranteed causal relationship between the merits of messenger and message and therefore the merits of a person's stance should be weighed on its own worth - rather than on the worth of its carrier. I think the phrase in the definition portion of the article that attempts to devalue the mere notion of an ad hominem fallacy should be deleted. If someone wants to create a special section that discusses that idea, that would be appropriate. However, a fringe POV, even if held by a handful of experts, should not be allowed to undermine the very notion of an Ad Hominem Fallacy before it has even been properly defined in the article. Udibi (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I would rather think that the core of the problem with the article is the sloppiness of the writing, rather than a malicious purpose (Hanlon's razor). In particular, there is very little distinction drawn between the term and its usage. Further, there is no distinction at all drawn between the usage of ad hominem in the logical context and in the fact discovery context. Further, Ad hominem is comonly used to discredit an opinion, rather than a logical argument (and often an opinion is masqueraded as an argument). And I completely agree with Udibi that the article must be clearly split along the line "Ad hominem fallacy" vs. "Ad hominem argument"; with the latter may or may not be a fallacy. Ladnadruk (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Important distinction

In judging the likelihood of accuracy of *data* supported only by the assertion of a person, the character of the person is relevant and useful to consider. However in determining the accuracy of an *argument* based on undisputed premises, the character or authority (or lack thereof) of the person making the argument is absolutely irrelevant. This article should make that vital (and one would hope obvious) distinction.

Good point. Data can be lied about, and it is the only thing in a logical argument that can be lied about. Data can still be argued valid or invalid based on how it was collected, but those facts are more "data" that can be lied about.

Thus it behooves a person to use his opponent's data to make his argument whenever possible.

When is this possible (or likely)? Where there is agreement on what is and isn't data, there are rarely ad hominem attacks. And "data" that is supported only by the assertion of one side in a dispute simply isn't data yet.

It is also important to consider WHO is doing the judging of character. This example - in some circumstances - would need to have the roles of "police" and "criminal" reversed to be faithful to reality...

"You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well."

This argument would generally be accepted as reasonable, as regards personal evidence, on the premise that criminals are likely to lie to protect each other. On the other hand, it is a valid example of ad hominem if the person making the claim is doing so on the basis of evidence independent of their own credibility.

The logical flaws are numerous and deep. 1. if there is a claim of innocence, presumably there hasn't been a conviction yet - and therefore no "criminal" to distrust on principle. 2. is there any concrete evidence (yes, I am EXPLICITLY excluding anectode) that "criminals", assuming you can group them together in the first place, are less reliable than other witnesses? If so, why are criminal informers used so much, and questioned so rarely? 3. where is the CONTENT of the claim "this man is innocent"? Is it "in my opinion, he didn't do it" or "I was with him and fifty other people partying when the crime happened"? If the content is "factual", then it can be checked, presumably like every OTHER "fact" in the situation. 4. presumably the "trusted" ones are police. Can you offer any evidence (again, evidence, not anecdote) that they lie LESS then the average person?24.17.180.126 (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Latin translation

Given as "argument to the person", "argument against the man" in the article, shouldn't the awkwardness of the former and the sexism of the latter be avoided by translating as "argument against the person"?--Rfsmit 23:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Transliterated, it is "Argument to the man", where "man" is the non-gender-specific generic form. "Argument against the person" may be a reasonable translation, but both of the given quotes seem to be bad compromises -- PaulxSA 11:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem generale = ?

attributing a described behaviour to a condition or property of mankind; to a species-wide, or cultural trait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.77.231.32 (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Eugenics: Good example?

While it may be a good journalist's style to use examples that are very disputed, it seems a little inappropriate within an encyclopedia. The example of using eugenics as an argumentum ad hominem creates the unfortunate impression that someone is trying no only to demonstrate the meaning of the term, but rather to sneak in a world view. On the page on eugenics, this is part of a neutral discussion, here it is simply a bad example.

It is better to use something that does not distract from what is the purpose of this article and that does not bring its authors under suspicion of abusing NPOV for their aims. Atoll 23:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

However, it is a common real-world example, ie, something the reader may have actually seen. Whenever any kind of eugenics/social-darwinism type argument is raised, it is immediately attacked as Nazi-ist. The point about ad hominem is that if social darwinism is evil, which it probably is, it is not evil because the Nazis believed in it; it would still be evil even if the Nazis were wildly opposed to it. -- PaulxSA 12:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with these comments. The tiny text line "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." is insufficient to reduce the damage to the argument that this particular example makes because of it's extreme nature. Eugenics is a poor example to use in this topic because of the moral ambiguity in the example of eugenics. This example smacks of Double-Speak and covert social conditioning. It's usage in this very important article subverts the content and causes confusion because of the intrinsically volatile nature of the example. I would request that someone create a different example that is less disruptive to the content of the article and replace this example. Chris Taylor May 15, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.147.254 (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm torn. Using a controversial topic helps the reader see the value of understanding fallacy beyond pure academics. The example is accurate and it may be argued that this helps both sides of the issue remove the bloat of fallacious arguments. On the other hand, it might be better to add an accurate example from the other side of the issue to restore nuetrality (if one can find an example). I too am concerned that people reading these examples have not internalised the problem of the fallacist's fallacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.29.209 (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to change this example if no one else will, it is a bad example because it isn't clear morally. A better example is something simple such as x is right wing, z is socialist, z is a homosexual therefore z's opinions on politics are invalid.

The way it is currently worded makes it seem as though the author is saying that eugenics might be a good thing. Eugenics is never a good thing.

This is bothering me a lot because I am using the wikipedia to help define a term and its definition has this shitty example in it.

C. Taylor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.64.251 (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Why we use ad hominems

I noticed that the intro discusses judging evidence by the character of the witness. This is an important tool in court cases, yet nothing is mentioned about it in the article proper. Since the article is essentially "ad homs are bad", this implies that the use in court is also bad. I thought this would be a good place for someone to discuss the legal use (and abuse) of character judgements in court. -- PaulxSA 13:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

(I added such a section, plus some other things, then Blax reverted the entire uglified article to an earlier clean version. Since it was my first admin-level reversion, I got angry and scared and confused... but I'm okay now :) -- PaulxSA (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC) )

In the legal issue above the question is whether or not to trust someone's honesty. Assessment of character applies there. --Roger Chrisman (talk) 03:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd take your suggestion more seriously, Paul, if you hadn't just committed an Ad Hominem statement yourself. To wit: You summed up the article in four words, took that summation and expected us to assume that it's valid, and then offered it a value judgement you think the article is making. You were OK up until then, but then you jumped to the conclusion that that value judgement you just assigned is actually being assigned by the article. Sorry, that's not how you construct an argument. Ohh, and if you thought this article had something to do with legalities, you thought wrong. This is philosophy, not legality. You want the next wiki down the hall, turn right, and make a left turn at Albiquirky. --Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I shortened "fallacy" to "bad", shoot me. And just to be pedantic, falsely shortening an argument, then attacking the shortened version as if it were the full argument is a straw man, not an ad hominem.

The article is primarily philosophical, but the wiki isn't. There is a Colloquial use section living here quite happily in spite of much of the colloquial use of ad hom being wrong. (Ie, "if you believe X you are stupid," is merely an insult not an ad hominem.) Since people do correctly make character judgements in the real world, as well as getting it horribly horribly wrong, I don't see why mentioning it in the article somehow harms the article, let alone wikipedia. Particularly, it explains why we are so vulnerable to using, and believing, ad hominem arguments. -- PaulxSA (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Inverse ad hominem

I've redirected this to appeal to authority, though the term is a little broader in scope. Should it have its own article, or perhaps a section here? Is a redirect of any sort useful in Wikipedia's present state? Richard001 (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Have created a section here. A summary of appeal to authority might also be appropriate. Richard001 (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there another form of inverse ad hominem? Rather than 'Person X is good, person X supports Y, therefore Y is true' which is the simple form presented, it seems to me there's another form. Notably, an inverse ad hominem circumstantial... Effectively, situations in which a person says what they would not be expected to say are often used to bolster an argument.

For instance, comtrast the presented ad hominem circumstantial example: "He's physically addicted to nicotine. Of course he defends smoking!”.

It's very common to hear an inverted form of this argument, in the following form: "He's physically addicted to nicotine, yet he believes smoking should be outlawed. This proves that smoking should be outlawed, because even the people one would expect to support it do not.”

Of course, this gets a bit grey as to whether it stands distinctly or sort of segues into a form of argument by authority. For instance, the following statement:

"He used to be a Satanist, but has since stopped being one. He alleges several socially unacceptable practices of Satanists, and argues that said religion is bad, and he would know because he used to be one".

An argument of this form could be considered sort of the mid point between an inverted circumstantial argument ad hominem and an appeal to authority. Of course, it's also a very potentially weakly weighted argument as well, which hinges on what 'he' has become since--if he became someone commonly opposed to Satanism, such as a Christian or an Atheist (both of whom oppose Satanism for seperate reasons) the weight perceived in 'his' opinion would likely be weaker, easily falling prey to circumstantial argument ad hominem in a non-inverted sense (i.e. "Well, someone who gave up Satanism for an opposing point of view would be against Satanism"). On the other hand, if he converted to a religion not opposed to Satanism but merely with different beliefs which do not oppose or negate Satanism's stance and which may be accepting of Satanism, such as Temple of Set, then maintaining a stnace against Satanism would not easily fall prey to a circumstantial argument ad hominem.

Anyway, just some thoughts that there's a whole area that might be nice to see explored if people can find references other than obviousness. After all, seeing that the sky is blue is no reason to say it is (at least acpording to Wikipedia's draconian definition of OR).65.87.20.98 (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a good example. We certainly need more on this section. I will have to look into the sky being blue. Richard001 (talk) 08:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of Terminology

Wikipedia states: “The argumentum ad hominem is a genetic fallacy and red herring, and is most often (but not always) an appeal to emotion.” Is this statement entirely accurate? Is an ad hominem argument always a genetic fallacy and red herring? Note the article does seem to differentiate an ad hominem argument from an ad hominem fallacy. I believe the issue is appropriately covered in the article but the opening statement says an argumentum ad hominem is a genetic fallacy and red herring. It is a concern only for greater accuracy and consistency of definition that some authors of critical thinking texts (such as Bruce Waller) have tried to clarify through terminology.

An excellent lay description of the ad hominem argument can be found with Waller, Bruce N. Critical Thinking, Fifth Edition. New Jersey: Person Education, Inc., 2005. Chapter 10: 180-209. A useful discussion of the various treatments of this topic can be found with Walton, Douglas. Ad Hominem Arguments, Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 1998. Chapter 2: 44-103. “The ad hominem fallacy is committed when one attempts to discredit an argument by attacking the source of the argument. But not all ad hominem arguments involve the ad hominem fallacy; in fact, most ad hominem arguments do not commit the ad hominem fallacy. (Many people regard all ad hominem arguments as automatically fallacious. That has the advantage of being easy; it has the disadvantage of being wrong.) An ad hominem argument commits the ad hominem fallacy only if it attacks the source of an argument and claims that because of some flaw in the source of the argument the argument itself is flawed” [Bruce N. Waller, Critical Thinking: Consider the Verdict Fifth Edition (New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005) 181.]

“So not all ad hominem arguments are fallacious. To the contrary, in one situation ad hominem arguments are quite valuable. When a claim is based on testimony - rather than argument - then ad hominem arguments are an appropriate and important means of challenging the claim.” [Bruce N. Waller, Critical Thinking: Consider the Verdict Fifth Edition (New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005) 182.]

“The results and quandaries that I have presented in this paper indicate that it would be worth to revising the fallacious character of the ad hominem way of argue from a dialectical conception of argument.” [Chichi, Graciela Marta. “The Greek Roots of the Ad Hominem-Argument.” Argumentation 16 (2002): 342.] Since post approximately 1995 (See [1] ) the idea that an ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy is likely to be challenged, it needs a reliable contemporary set of sources. “The typical glib dismissal of the argumentum ad hominem as fallacious threatens our understanding of the important nuances of actual arguments, particularly in matters of practical reasoning where there are no incontrovertible ‘facts’ available to the disputants." [Metcalf, R. “Rethinking the Ad Hominem: A Case Study of Chomsky.” Argumentation 19 (2005): 47.] “Far from being a fallacious mode of argument, asking who supports a particular argument forms a valuable and crucial rational life skill. Unfortunately, the ad hominem argument has come to represent an idealised caricature of how this argument form can be abused or used wrongly. Due to the need for simplification, logic texts have erroneously characterised this mode of argument as always (or very nearly always) a serious rational misperformance.” [de Wijze, Stephen. Complexity, “Relevance and Character: Problems with teaching the ad hominem fallacy.” Educational Philosophy and Theory 35 (1), (2003): 31.] The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

“In argumentation we respond to the argument, not to the person behind the argument. That rule is broken when the argument is ignored and the person responsible for the argument is deliberately attacked. When that happens the ‘ad hominem fallacy’ is being committed.” [ D.Q. McInerny, Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking (New York: Random House, 2004) 115. ] Wpraeder (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that name-calling by itself is not an ad hominem argument. Rather, the attack on the arguer must occur as an ostensible attack on the arguers’ claim. The mere presence of a personal attack (such as sarcasm, personal abuse, or name-calling) does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, otherwise the ad hominem argument isn't there. It is not a ad hominem argument to attack someone; the ad hominem argument comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments. So all ad hominem arguments can be considered personal attacks but not all personal attacks can be considered ad hominem arguments. Wpraeder (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

‘The argumentum ad hominem, meaning “argument directed to the man,” is the kind of argument that criticizes another argument by criticizing the arguer rather than his argument. Basically, this type of argument is the type of personal attack of an arguer that brings the attacked individual’s personal circumstances, trustworthiness, or character into question. The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.’ [Walton, Douglas. Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, 2008, p. 170.]Wpraeder (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ad hominem versus Ad personam

"Ad personam" redirects to this article, which is OK for one meaning of "Ad personam",but leaves at least two other meanings unmentioned in Wikipedia: (1) Ad personam laws - laws explicitly affecting named individuals, such as those that are currently the subject of controversy in Italy; (2) Ad personam appointments - posts created for named individuals, such as professorships given to distinguished scholars at certain universities (maybe only in continental Europe?). I may be the only person who's ever tried to look up "ad personam" in Wikipedia, but I doubt it. Shouldn't there be an article on it, or at least a brief reference in this article? Here's hoping ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.154.153 (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Stupid Idiot?

As oppose to a smart idiot? --75.74.114.94 (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Article Rewrite

Thank you to whoever rewrote this article to help with the removal of the hitler-eugenics example. It was a bad example in an important topic The rewrite is excellent, and I like the expansion of the topic. Chris Taylor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.147.254 (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarity and usefulness reduced via revisions?

The process of revision has greatly reduced the clarity/readability/usability of this article since the last time I looked at it -- particularly regarding the basic definition of ad hominem. I once found this article considerably more useful than I do now.

For those who care about this topic, I suggest looking back and attempting to reintroduce some of the lost content/language, because while I once cited this article, I now find it too skeletal and oblique to be of much use. Remember that the article is not designed for the obscurantist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.99.37 (talk • contribs)

• The problem with the article is that it is mostly original research and unverified. For whatever reason, editors have removed academic citations in order to push their own barrow (NPOV problems). The rest of the edits seem more interested in squabbling over fairly substandard 'examples'. So that's the problem with the article as it stands. If you'd like to contribute, I highly recommend it because the article needs a lot of work. 203.129.44.15 (talk) 12:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Revised 'Guilt by association' example needed?

   Source A makes claim P.
   Group B make claims P and Q.
   Therefore, Source 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."

This example seems incongruent with what is trying to be explained. A 'belief in revolution' doesn't seem to be the same as an additional claim that would hold no consistent relation to the first claim. nkife (talk) 05:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Distinguishing from Ad populum

Rather than step again into a flurry of changes, I'll note the problem here: the current state of the page has lost the ability to help those who read a bit of Latin but are unfamiliar with the terms for logical argumentation. We are likely to confound Ad populum with Ad hominem without first translating each into English. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There are many arguments/fallicies with a Latinate name of the form Ad blah. I think it's a stretch to say they're all confusable for each other and don't see why "hominem" and "populum" would be more liable to be confused than any of the other combos to someone who doesn't know Latin. At least in English I could kinda see people/person and appeal/argument getting mixed up. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Can Ad Homs be Positive?

For example, would this qualify as an ad homenim? "The guy running for mayor has such great political ideas because he donated thousands to charity!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.61.135 (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

See the "Inverse ad hominem" section of the article. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

COI

Ad hominem is always a logical fallacy. That it is allowed under law as Character evidence, in politics as Conflict of interest and on WP as WP:COI does not change that fact. Full discussions of not only Ad hominem but those other subjects must include the fact that this lower standard of fact is allowed, but not an exoneration or obfuscation of the logical flaw in those allowances. I also wonder whether such an aside belongs in the lead paragraph. Anarchangel (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

why did article degrade

Here are 2 random versions from the past: [2] [3]

Although I didn't compare 3 versions in detail, it does seem that current version lacks quite a bit of useful examples and information. 89.216.196.129 (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Looked at both and agree. Version 3 preferred, but in both cases the opening paragraphs give a better & clearer definition. I like the brevity of the current page but find the openign paragraphs infinitely LESS helpful! --gobears87 (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Translation

I'm not an expert on Latin but I believe that although the literal translation of "ad hominem" could be considered to be "to the man", isn't "to the person" perhaps a more accurate translation that reflects the meaning better? The online version of Merriam-Webster supports this translation, and it is in fact also mentioned in the article itself. Kombucha (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added the second translation of "to the person" as no one has yet commented. Kombucha (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Exampes

Examples involving a John or Mary are tolerable even if unreferenced, but the examples of statements about Jimmy Hendrix must come from sources, otherwise their demonstrative efficiency is greatly devaluated: the probability that someone would say that music of Jimmy Hendrix is worthless may seem low, unless there are live examples of this kind of putting down. And I am sure one can find ones. Ladnadruk (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

ad feminam

"ad feminam" is just a very particular case of the ad hominem abusive. This is typically not mentioned in the vast majority of Logic books. Frankly, it's not noteworthy. I hope nobody thinks that mentioning "hominem" and not "feminam" is sexist, that would verge on insanity.187.38.21.145 (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning because it is a particular case of this fallacy used against a particular group (i.e. women), and is common enough that it has a unique term to describe it. I'm not aware of any other similar variants on this phrase. Frankly, ad feminam ought to have its own article - there'd be enough to say about it - but it seems there was a consensus to merge it into this one. Robofish (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Look, the same could be said of using the ad hominem fallacy against thousands of other groups: every existing political alignment/ideology/whatever, every nationality, and many other personal characteristics that are commonly used to setup an argument against the person. There is no doubt that denying a proposition because its author is a woman in fallacious. My point is that there is no difference in doing this and citing any other personal trait, rather that addressing the subject of the proposition. If we were to cite every single case, there would be an overwhelming number of sections in this article. In my opinion, what's important to do here is to mention the general mechanism of the ad hominem fallacy, rather than citing every possible particular case. 187.37.143.145 (talk) 12:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thinking a bit more about this, I do agree that the term is noteworthy: it has a history and has been discussed by people, and there's even a political importance to it, since it seems that the idea has been part of the still ongoing struggle against sexism. What I can't agree with is listing it as a type of ad hominem, because it's not a type, it's a case. For instance, the association fallacy, which is typically mentioned as a type, has a different mechanism when compared to the ad hominem abusive, since the criticism is directed at a third party and not at the arguer himself. Circumstantial is again slightly different, as it's not directed at a personal trait, but at the bias. However, there's no difference in method between arguing "you're wrong because you're a woman" and other cases of the ad hominem abusive, such as "you're wrong because you're rich/poor" (sometimes mentioned as "argumentum ad crumenam" and "argumentum ad lazarum") or "you're wrong because of the color of your skin" or whatever else. I feel that having an article to discuss the history and political importance of ad feminam is in order, but I don't see why it should be listed amongst the various types of the argument against the person. 187.37.143.145 (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

"Common misconceptions" section?

I question the validity and necessity of the "common misconceptions" section in this article. First, few of the links come from reputable sources. Second, there is only one misconception stated; does it really deserve its own place in the article? Beyond that, however, is that in most cases of "verbal abuse," ad hominem designed to discredit the author. Could this not be seen as a sort of red herring, and thus still be illogical? SweetNightmares (awaken) 04:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The connection with ad personam & ad feminam should be mentioned in the intro.

Ad personam & Ad feminam redirect to Ad hominem, which article mentions the first not at all and the second only once in the middle section somewhere. A brief paragraph explaining their connection to ad hominem and then perhaps contrasting a few of their more important individual nuances & connotations would round out the intro.

Sorry that all I can do at the moment is mention this and ask for help. Thanks in advance! --Geekdiva (talk) 07:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

How can we make the 2nd message box on this talk page useful? Should it be removed?

Between the Ad feminam-merge message box and the WikiProject Philosophy message box, there's another message box with text that begins, "Text from [[{{{from}}}]] was copied into [[{{{to}}}]] with..." This makes no sense, so we should either figure out its purpose by something like examining diffs or delete the box.

Thanks! --Geekdiva (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed as it probably largely duplicates T:Afd-merged-from. --Izno (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ad mascunam?

If ad feminam refers to attacks on women as women, and ad hominem is gender-neutral, what term refers to attacks on men as men?

Example could be a woman complaining to her sister about her husband’s inability to clean the house properly: "What did I except out of him, he’s a man."
--Atikokan (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a broad trend, in any culture, of discrediting men's opinion simply because they are men? No. Like User 187.37.143.145 said, it's really technically an example of Ad Hominem, (as 'Ad Mascunam' would be). The term emerged as a way to refer to the broad, normalized trend of Ad Hominem arguments against women, not really to expand the meaning of Ad Hominem. Air (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone's now added 'ad homines' to this article, claiming it's the specific term for dismissing men's opinions because they are men. I can't say I've heard of that one, so I'd say it should only stay if someone can find mention of it in a reliable source. Robofish (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Examples

Abusive ad hominem attacks are inherently unconstructive and absurd. Therefore, deleting an example that demonstrates these facets as "vandalism" is inappropriate. I have now been forced to revert these improper edits close to a half-dozen times. Each time I have explained in the edit notes, but somebody still reverts and gives the exact same "unconstructive vandalism" reason that I already refuted.

If you would like to present an argument, please do so here. My edits were NOT vandalism! This has been made abundantly clear. If you dislike the example, discuss it here and wait until a consensus is reached before unilaterally reverting legitimate edits. I sincerely hope this is the last time I have to repeat myself on this matter. 173.10.123.113 (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)