What constitutes a true ad hominem argument?

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

by sfk • 18 years ago

48 22 18 years ago

plover.net

cliffy• 18 years ago

You sir, are an idiot.

JoelSutherland• 18 years ago

It's also important to remember that the reverse is true:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority...

tptacek• 18 years ago

And also important that in arguments that devolve to appeals to authority, arguments about the arguers are not always fallacious.

marcus• 18 years ago

Yes that is what PG always says.

cousin_it• 18 years ago

He also has a great article on the software developer condition: http://plover.net/~bonds/software.html

bena4• 18 years ago

According to this guy, the only ad hominem argument is invoking ad hominem. Of course, he is using the "no true Scotsman" fallacy to prove his point saying that the other arguments aren't "true" ad hominem.

aston2• 18 years ago

He only points out that many arguments that point out ad hominem arguments are themselves ad hominem. He doesn't restrict ad hominem to that one case, though.

And if you didn't suck at reading comprehension, I wouldn't need to point that out...

stcredzero• 18 years ago

How about, "Apparently, there was a failure in reading comprehension that preceded your reasoning."

Is that quip about "Reading Comprehension" directed at me?

bena4• 18 years ago

My reading comprehension is fine, it's just that about the only arguments he finds to be ad hominem are those claiming ad hominem.

Although the article could have been much shorter if he simply defined ad hominem as "You're an asshole and therefore wrong."

randomwalker• 18 years ago

This was the best example by far IMO:

    A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
    B: "Well, you're a rodent and a weasel, so there goes your argument."

    B's argument here might appear on superficial inspection to be sound, but it is in fact ad hominem.
    He is using the terms "rodent" and "weasel" in different senses to those used by A. Although he
    tries to make it appear that he is countering A's argument by invalidating one of the premises, 
    he is in fact trying to counter A's argument by heaping abuse on A. (This might also be an example of
    an *ad homonym* argument.)

Eliezer• 18 years ago

Beautiful, thorough, and precise.

sh1mmer2• 18 years ago

This argument would be interesting if the author wasn't an idiot and had a grasp of what sarcasm is.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."

B: "This does not logically follow. You evidently know nothing about logic."

B's argument is still not ad hominem. Note that B directly engages A's argument: he is not attacking the person A instead of his argument. There is no indication that B thinks his subsequent attack on A strengthens his argument, or is a substitute for engaging with A's argument. Unless we have a good reason for thinking otherwise, we should assume it is just a sarcastic flourish.

What a genius!

sh1mmer2• 18 years ago

Apparently the rater who down-modded me gets sarcasm and faux-ad hominem.

eatenbyagrue• 18 years ago

Oh man I wish comments were enabled on his post...

zmimon• 18 years ago

Nice to see a good explanation (if a little painstaking) of this. "Ad hominem" is fast becoming the new Godwin ...

Having said that, I hope that people don't think this gives everyone license to abuse each other. Regardless of whether it's part of your argument, insulting or ridiculing someone rarely helps progress an argument forward.

sofal• 18 years ago

Another term that is overused is the "straw man argument" comeback. It's not Latin, but people still viciously cling to it.

Wherever there is a misunderstanding between two different sides, the defensive cry "straw man!" is heard either to compensate for a lack of ability (or motivation) to explain a point of view or to willfully ignore obvious implications of an argument.

If you look hard enough, you can find a straw man in almost every argument. Although it's important to find these misinterpretations and correct them, it usually does no good to yell "straw man!" at the other guy as part of your rebuttal.

There are some cases where a straw man argument is purposely used, usually to attack someone else's beliefs or philosophy, and therefore I think it's appropriate to bring up that term (if you're up to feeding trolls).

Next time you feel like reaching for your "straw man" defense, try to understand how and why you may have been misinterpreted, and take the opportunity to explain yourself better.

What constitutes a true ad hominem argument?

Related Stories