6
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 1:
Line 1: − + Line 30:
Line 30: + + − − * In the modern legal system, most judges allow the prosecutor to attack the credibility of those who testify on the stand; such [[witness impeachment]] can call into question the character, impartiality, honesty, or competence of a witness.
Clarifying one example of "acceptable" ad hominem
#REDIRECT[[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]]
#Redirect[[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]]
An ''argumentum '''ad hominem''''' ([[Latin]]: "argument against the man"), is a [[logical fallacy]] consisting of denigrating one's opponent or otherwise introducing irrelevant premises about one's opponent, instead of dealing with the flaws in the form and function of the opponent's argument. Note that the statement made in an ''ad hominem'' argument does not have to be false for this type of fallacy to have been committed; it just has to be irrelevant to the topic of the debate.
An ''argumentum '''ad hominem''''' ([[Latin]]: "argument against the man"), is a [[logical fallacy]] consisting of denigrating one's opponent or otherwise introducing irrelevant premises about one's opponent, instead of dealing with the flaws in the form and function of the opponent's argument. Note that the statement made in an ''ad hominem'' argument does not have to be false for this type of fallacy to have been committed; it just has to be irrelevant to the topic of the debate.
== Ad Hominem Arguments Are Not Always Fallacious ==
== Ad Hominem Arguments Are Not Always Fallacious ==
* The ad hominem attack is usually fallacious, and becomes reasonable ''only'' when the consideration being advanced is directly relevant to whether the other person is generally truthful or reliable, or whether he is telling the truth in this instance, or whether he is engaged in a logical fallacy of his own. The usual case occurs when the other person is engaging in [[special pleading]].<ref name=Lander/> Exposure of special pleading is a valid counterargument--so long as the accusation itself is valid. Technically, this is ''not'' an example of ''ad hominem'', because it is an attack on the specific argument and/or the evidence advanced to support it.
* The ad hominem attack is usually fallacious, and becomes reasonable ''only'' when the consideration being advanced is directly relevant to whether the other person is generally truthful or reliable, or whether he is telling the truth in this instance, or whether he is engaged in a logical fallacy of his own. The usual case occurs when the other person is engaging in [[special pleading]].<ref name=Lander/> Exposure of special pleading is a valid counterargument--so long as the accusation itself is valid. Technically, this is ''not'' an example of ''ad hominem'', because it is an attack on the specific argument and/or the evidence advanced to support it.
* In the modern legal system, most judges allow the prosecutor to attack the credibility of those who testify on the stand; such [[witness impeachment]] can call into question the character, impartiality, honesty, or competence of a witness. Again, however, this is not technically an ''ad hominem'' argument.
* [[Conservatives]] understand that the basic moral character of a person is always relevant to an argument. [[Liberals]] and [[Atheists]] are outraged by examination of an individual's character, considering it to be a personal affront, mainly because they are [[moral relativism|moral relativists.]] Conservatives understand how important it is that those debating an issue be [[trustworthy]], otherwise a true debate/discussion cannot happen. An immoral person is of course incapable of making a legitimate, intellectual, argument because they come from [[deceit]], like [[Richard Dawkins]].
* [[Conservatives]] understand that the basic moral character of a person is always relevant to an argument. [[Liberals]] and [[Atheists]] are outraged by examination of an individual's character, considering it to be a personal affront, mainly because they are [[moral relativism|moral relativists.]] Conservatives understand how important it is that those debating an issue be [[trustworthy]], otherwise a true debate/discussion cannot happen. An immoral person is of course incapable of making a legitimate, intellectual, argument because they come from [[deceit]], like [[Richard Dawkins]].
==Other meanings of ad hominem==
==Other meanings of ad hominem==