Ad Hominem Attacks - Can anyone Justify them?

caniswalensis

Master Poster
caniswalensis
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,561
Hi all,

I am starting this thread because of I what I perceive to be abuses of this logical fallacy, and a recent conversation in this thread :
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196349

We have all seen various ad hominem attacks being made, from simple name calling to more elaborate ploys like insinuations of sexual misconduct & such.

I see it like this: A skeptic or critical thinker is only as good as their logic. To claim to be a skeptic is to claim to have a special and superior system of thinking that aids in finding out the truth. So if one knowingly indulges in bad logic, they are by that fact alone, treading on the ideas that they claim to uphold. It is like a race car driver refusing to get in the car; an act that alters the nature of the person committing it.

Of course no one is perfect. People will make mistakes in thinking. That is not desirable, but it is unavoidable and forgivable. On the other hand, to knowingly employ a tactic that is deemed worthless by the tenets of logical thought & discussion seems beyond the pale.

We can all see that being done plainly enough. This very forum is filled with people & groups being called stupid or similar names. Can anyone offer a logical justification for using the ad-hominem attack?

I am hoping others will offer their insights here and that we can have a friendly and enlightening conversation on the topic.

Best regards, Canis
 
You can have a logical dismissal of an argument, and then insult someone. It may be bad manners, but it's not an ad-hominem attack.
 
Last edited:
I think you misunderstand what an "ad hominem" argument is. It's a fallacious argument that uses some negative quality of a person as an excuse for dismissing their arguments. It's not the same thing as a personal insult.

The thread in question was not meant to be an argument against homeopathy's efficacy (not least for treating gunshot wounds). It was already understood by those participating in the thread that homeopathy is not effective for treating anything. The point of the thread was that the particular homeopath's claims seemed particularly absurd. It angered a few participating members because they know that some people will believe the claims, so they spoke in ill manner about the man making the claims.

It's clear, however, that the person they were insulting is either insane or lacks a good conscience, and since this became the topic of the discussion (rather than a premise in an argument against homeopathy), making either claim was not a logical fallacy.
 
There's a difference between "your argument is wrong because you're crazy" and "you're crazy if you believe something like that". Only one of these is an ad hominem argument.
 
Mojo said:
There's a difference between "your argument is wrong because you're crazy" and "you're crazy if you believe something like that". Only one of these is an ad hominem argument.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's a mistake made all too often on this board. I have on more than one occasion pointed that either I'm right or I'm wrong and being an arrogant ******* is not relevant.
 
I agree with the rebuttals to the OP, but only because I think the OP isn't stated exactly as meant (sorry if I am mistakenly re-interpreting your post, canis).

I think the OP is two other things instead:

1. The call for civility that occasionally arises on these boards

2. A call to stop internet-diagnosing.

It is the second point that I think has more merit. Much of the thread that the OP references gave the impression of actually calling the subject crazy and implying that it was meant in a clinical sense.

Of course, it is possible that I misread those posts since none of them explicitly said "It is my considered diagnosis that the subject suffers from a clinical mental disorder," but if we can never read between the lines of what skeptics say then skeptics need to never read between the lines of what those we argue against say.
 
UncaYimmy said:
Exactly. It's a mistake made all too often on this board. I have on more than one occasion pointed that either I'm right or I'm wrong and being an arrogant ******* is not relevant.
Click to expand...

Well you're a stalker.
 
caniswalensis said:
Hi all,

I am starting this thread because of I what I perceive to be abuses of this logical fallacy, and a recent conversation in this thread :
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196349

We have all seen various ad hominem attacks being made, from simple name calling to more elaborate ploys like insinuations of sexual misconduct & such.

I see it like this: A skeptic or critical thinker is only as good as their logic. To claim to be a skeptic is to claim to have a special and superior system of thinking that aids in finding out the truth. So if one knowingly indulges in bad logic, they are by that fact alone, treading on the ideas that they claim to uphold. It is like a race car driver refusing to get in the car; an act that alters the nature of the person committing it.

Of course no one is perfect. People will make mistakes in thinking. That is not desirable, but it is unavoidable and forgivable. On the other hand, to knowingly employ a tactic that is deemed worthless by the tenets of logical thought & discussion seems beyond the pale.

We can all see that being done plainly enough. This very forum is filled with people & groups being called stupid or similar names. Can anyone offer a logical justification for using the ad-hominem attack?

I am hoping others will offer their insights here and that we can have a friendly and enlightening conversation on the topic.

Best regards, Canis
Click to expand...


You seem to have your "we's" and "I's" mixed up.

We have all sinned and fell short of caniswalensis's vision of a skeptic.


ETA: IOW your concern is noted.
 
Last edited:
UncaYimmy said:
Exactly. It's a mistake made all too often on this board. I have on more than one occasion pointed that either I'm right or I'm wrong and being an arrogant ******* is not relevant.
Click to expand...

You are right.
It should be 'you are wrong and arrogant'.
But never 'you are right and arrogant' because if you are right you agree with me and that can't possibly be arrogant.
What's the latin term for saying you are right because you are not arrogant?
 
kerikiwi said:
You are right.
It should be 'you are wrong and arrogant'.
But never 'you are right and arrogant' because if you are right you agree with me and that can't possibly be arrogant.
What's the latin term for saying you are right because you are not arrogant?
Click to expand...

Emperor?
 
While it is a logical fallacy, it sometimes works as a heuristic. Especially if the person in question has an ideology that creates predictable baseless conclusions.

An example: I can predict the response of Fred Phelps, leader of the westboro baptist church, to most events. His response will be, this is god punishing people for not killing gays. I don't necessarily need to know his specific position to know that it's going to be wrong. In this case, the "ad hominem" is really just saying, illogical ideologies will create illogical conclusions.
 
I'm always reminded of a conversation I had with my sister once. I said that someone was stupid. She accused me of an ad hominem attack. I explained "Not really--I always use the term 'stupid' to mean willfully ignorant of the facts, and this person is that. And you know that's how I use the term, so please stop equivocating."

On these boards it seems the term "ignorant" falls into that category. It's not an ad hominem to call me ignorant of psychology, or cosmology, or the like--I don't know those sciences beyond what I've gathered talking to people who have studied them, and I AM ignorant of them. Similarly, when someone argues that evolution is wrong because there's evidence for a global flood it's not an ad hominem to call them ignorant; it's a justified evaluation of their level of understanding of the subject at hand.

This makes the issue one of jargon and semantics, not of fallicies.

A skeptic or critical thinker is only as good as their logic. To claim to be a skeptic is to claim to have a special and superior system of thinking that aids in finding out the truth. So if one knowingly indulges in bad logic, they are by that fact alone, treading on the ideas that they claim to uphold.
Click to expand...
Bull. A skeptic doesn't have some special and superior system of thinking--they use good old-fashioned logic, which is available to anyone with a functioning brain (no insult intended--if you have a mental disability or physical anomaly that prevents you from using logic obviously you can't be expected to use logic). One of the key tenents of skepticism as I understand it is to question everything, even yourself and your own arguments and the arguments of those you agree with--skeptics EXPECT a certain amount of error and bad logic.

On the other hand, to knowingly employ a tactic that is deemed worthless by the tenets of logical thought & discussion seems beyond the pale.
Click to expand...
Not really. To engage in such an argument to the exclusion of all other arguments, sure. However, debates usually aren't the nice, formal situations you seem to assume. They're messy, more akin to a sword fight than a chess match, and sometimes a dirty trick gets you further quicker than politeness and etiquette. Sometimes, particularly with issues where lives hang in the balance, a dirty trick that works is better than a valid argument that doesn't accomplish anything.
 
schrodingasdawg said:
I think you misunderstand what an "ad hominem" argument is. It's a fallacious argument that uses some negative quality of a person as an excuse for dismissing their arguments. It's not the same thing as a personal insult.
Click to expand...

Or for supporting their arguments. Every subject or argument is not important enough to spend time educating yourself about. It makes sense, therefore, to accept the evidence of those we deem worthy of trust and to reject that evidence of those we do not, all other rational factors being equal.

If there is a thread about some new development in science and James Randi posts that it is pseudoscience and Kent Hovind posts (from prison, I guess) that it is cutting edge science - rather than become a scientist and get a full education in the field, it's a lot mroe practical for me to accept Randi's word, unless the balance of evidence changes.

The ad hominem argument is not necessarily bad, or wrong and has never been regarded as such. It serves a practicla purpose when used correctly. certainly Aristotle would prefer hte rational argument, but I don't recall thast he dismissed the ethical appeal (ad hominem argument) as useless or wrong.
 
Last edited:
There is a fine line between telling the truth and what some would perceive as a personal attack.

If someone tells me they can bend spoons with their mind ( or see the future, etc.) , that would not be a call for me to venture into territory that some may consider rude. But if someone demands that i accept that they can do this and give them the benefit of the doubt, i am going to inform them that at no point did i fall off a turnip truck, and that their request either shows a direct con, or terminal naivety.

The problem is some people are much more easily offended than others. Personally one could call me every name in the book, if they have some substance mixed in, well i can ignore it and reply to the substance. But some people will get all surly when one says their favorite belief is not backed up by evidence.

While i am against simply calling someone names , offense is a tricky subject. It is very easy to cloak yourself in an armor of offense, and sadly, an effective tactic. One of the easiest ways to derail a debate is to simply shout AD HOM!

To me, i think the best solution is just to not respond if someone is simply calling you names. Offense has so many colors to try and cater to everyone, from myself to someone who would consider " Psychic power does not exist" as a personal insult,is simply impossible. So i say the onus should be on the person who feels offended. If you feel someone has no substance and is just attacking you for the sake of it, don't reply. No one is keeping score, and it doesn't effect you at all.
 
sadhatter said:
There is a fine line between telling the truth and what some would perceive as a personal attack.

If someone tells me they can bend spoons with their mind ( or see the future, etc.) , that would not be a call for me to venture into territory that some may consider rude. But if someone demands that i accept that they can do this and give them the benefit of the doubt, i am going to inform them that at no point did i fall off a turnip truck, and that their request either shows a direct con, or terminal naivety.
Click to expand...

No fine line here. I've been working in the turnip industry for years and I'm tired of this ugly, mean-spirited metaphor. Do I go to your place of employment and knock whatever out of whatever?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom