Difference between revisions of "Ad hominem"

Revision as of 19:05, September 11, 2008

Redirect to:

Hagger

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-An ''argumentum '''ad hominem''''' ([[Latin]]: "argument against the man"), is a [[logical fallacy]] which takes place when one argues by denegrating one's opponent, instead of actually 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.
+#REDIRECT [[Hagger]]
-== Classical structure ==
-Classically, this fallacy casts doubt on what a person is saying because of (imputed) flaws in the person's character, or circumstances peculiar to the person, that are unrelated to the matter at hand. Its usual structure is:
-# A makes claim X.
-# A has a flaw in his character, or else his circumstances mean that X somehow serves a special interest of A, etc.
-# Therefore X is false.<ref name=Nizkor>The Nizkor Project, [http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html Fallacy: Ad Hominem] (retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref><ref name=Lander>Lander University, Department of Philosophy, ''[http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html Philosophy 103, Introduction to Logic: Argumentum ad Hominem]''. (Retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref>
-== Why Ad Hominem is Objectionable ==
-The ''ad hominem'' is objectionable and usually fallacious practice because:
-# It is an [[appeal to emotion]] rather than to fact.<ref name=heritage>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem Definition of ad hominem] from ''The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language'', 4th ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006 (retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref>
-# It introduces an irrelevant consideration.<ref name=Engel>S. Morris Engel, ''With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies'', 5th ed., St. Martin's Press, 1994, pp. 198-206. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>
-== Forms of Ad Hominem ==
-The ad hominem fallacy can take several forms. The most common of these are personal abuse<ref name=Engel/> and the introduction of an irrelevant circumstance.<ref name=Engel/> Some debaters use the ''ad hominem'' attack pre-emptively, a technique known as ''poisoning the well.''<ref name=Engel2>Engel, ''op. cit.'', pp. 206-209. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>
-In a special form of ''ad hominem'' that is closely akin to [[special pleading]], a debater attempts to deflect criticism of himself by asserting that his opponent has the identical character flaw. This form is called ''tu quoque'' ([[Latin]], "thou too"). The proverbial expression of this fallacy is "It takes one to know one" or "Let the pot call the kettle black."<ref name=Warburton>Nigel Warburton, ''Thinking from A to Z'', 2nd. ed., "Politician's Answer", pp. 103-104. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>
-== Example ==
-The statement
-:'[[Richard Wagner]] was an opera composer much admired by the Nazis'
-might be considered an ad hominem attack on Wagner's music.  It is true, and in some contexts might be a relevant comment.  But if someone says it in order to suggest that Wagner was a bad composer, then it's an ad hominem attack, because whether some bad people liked his music is not a relevant comment on the quality of his music.
-== Ad Hominem 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.
-In the modern legal system, most judges allow the prosecutor to attack the credibility of those who testify on the stand.
-==Other meanings of ad hominem==
-American Heritage Dictionary says:
-:The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in "It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way." [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem]
-== References ==
-<references/>
-== See Also ==
-* [[Special pleading]]
-[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

Difference between revisions of "Ad hominem"

Revision as of 19:05, September 11, 2008

Navigation menu

Search