Is ad hominem ever valid?

rcronk said:
I know what you mean about them being satisfying. :) So ad hominem attacks are never a way to win an argument, but can they be used to challenge the evidence chain or expertise? If so, what's valid and what's not? Where's the line?
Click to expand...

Challenging expertise isn't really all that helpful. If a high school drop out builds a cold fusion reactor and it works, you can't prove him wrong by bringing up his educational history.

Appealing to authority can be useful but only in the broadest sense. If I have to get a kidney transplant, I go to a doctor, not a gardner. There is no guarantee the doctor knows more but it is a safe bet.

Expertise is something to consider when weighing opinions on topics we know nothing about and do not have the time to research ourselves.
 
rcronk said:
Has that thread reached 10,000 posts yet? From what I saw on that thread, it had a high signal to ad hominem attack ratio and it was very annoying. It really got in the way of clear debate unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Yeah - that thread doesn't have anything to do with debate.

I don't know if his declining to bet would technically be an ad hominem attack. What kind of fallacy would it be to assume that he's bluffing because he doesn't take a bet?
Click to expand...

I didn't mean his declining, I meant my offering in the first place, and then using the fact that he declined as an argument. I mean, his not accepting the bet is a personal decision that might have little to do with the actual issue, so it is a kind of ad hom.
 
Last edited:
To answer the original question, it depends on the situation. In a debate, ad hominems are virtually always logical fallacies. In a courtroom, however, they are perfectly acceptable. In fact, the whole concept of "character witnesses" are nothing but pro hominems and ad hominems. If the question is, "Is this person capable of doing such a thing?" the the answer must be evidence for and against. True, this is more than just insults, but it certainly may have nothing to do with the question of the crime itself. But this also overlaps with the logical fallacy of "poisoning the well", which is also a perfectly legitimate legal technique.

But even here, the phrase "You are an idiot" is sometimes acceptible if you follow it with "because..."
 
As it is often said, there's a difference between insulting someone and describing them accurately. I think the unofficial rule around here is that it's technically not ad hominem if you call a person an idiot or a moron, and then go on to enumerate legitimate reasons why you believe they have less credibility. (The technical definition of "idiot" originated as "person lacking professional skill" though in modern psychology it refers to one with severe mental retardation.) If however you were to just tell someone that, "You suck [lower anatomical extremities]," and leave it at that, then it would certainly be ad hominem and therefore unacceptable.
 
Silentknight said:
As it is often said, there's a difference between insulting someone and describing them accurately.
Click to expand...

A good insult does both, and is recognised as doing so by the audience you're playing to. A bad insult is contemptible. Neither has anything to do with ad hominem argument, which is always invalid. Anyone who can't understand that is a dickhead, m'kay? :) (I just couldn't resist that.)

I think the unofficial rule around here is that it's technically not ad hominem if you call a person an idiot or a moron, and then go on to enumerate legitimate reasons why you believe they have less credibility. (The technical definition of "idiot" originated as "person lacking professional skill" though in modern psychology it refers to one with severe mental retardation.)
Click to expand...

Technically, an idiot can't type, and a moron can't even cut-and-paste.

If however you were to just tell someone that, "You suck [lower anatomical extremities]," and leave it at that, then it would certainly be ad hominem and therefore unacceptable.
Click to expand...

It's unacceptable, but it isn't ad hominem. It's just toilet-talk, and by convention it concedes the argument. It does where I come from, anyway.
 
Ad hominem statements aren't necessarily wrong in and of themselves, but they are weak. If your argument is a good one, then you won't need to rely on ad hominem statements to back it up. If the best support for your argument you can come up with is ad hominem, then you should probably examine your premises.
 
Tricky said:
To answer the original question, it depends on the situation. In a debate, ad hominems are virtually always logical fallacies.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem is always a logical fallacy.

In a courtroom, however, they are perfectly acceptable.
Click to expand...

In a courtroom, logic has a fight on its hands.

In fact, the whole concept of "character witnesses" are nothing but pro hominems and ad hominems. If the question is, "Is this person capable of doing such a thing?" the the answer must be evidence for and against. True, this is more than just insults, but it certainly may have nothing to do with the question of the crime itself. But this also overlaps with the logical fallacy of "poisoning the well", which is also a perfectly legitimate legal technique.
Click to expand...

This is all about playing to an audience, not about logic. An argument involves evidence and logic - no audience. When the evidence isn't conclusive you can only present your opinion of the balance of the evidence.

But even here, the phrase "You are an idiot" is sometimes acceptible if you follow it with "because..."
Click to expand...

Some arguments simply demand that response, in the heat of the moment :).
 
CapelDodger said:
Ad hominem is always a logical fallacy.

In a courtroom, logic has a fight on its hands.

This is all about playing to an audience, not about logic. An argument involves evidence and logic - no audience. When the evidence isn't conclusive you can only present your opinion of the balance of the evidence.

Some arguments simply demand that response, in the heat of the moment :).
Click to expand...
Quite correct on all points, but the question wasn't "is ad hominem ever logical?" it was "is ad hominem ever valid?" It is valid, if illogical, in certain circumstances. Flame wars come to mind, you pedantic mongrel taffy-loving... erm... something that is spelled without vowels. Maybe Phllygm.
 
Last edited:
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
 
ravdin said:
Ad hominem statements aren't necessarily wrong in and of themselves, but they are weak. If your argument is a good one, then you won't need to rely on ad hominem statements to back it up. If the best support for your argument you can come up with is ad hominem, then you should probably examine your premises.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. If you can't press your argument home because it meets valid objections, you have to question it. If it doesn't actually stand up you've learnt something, which is always good. If nothing else, you're better prepared next time the subject is broached.

There is, of course, a tipping-point known as "exasperation" when some idiot simply won't give up on invalid objections (often ad hominem in nature), at which point you might as well vent your frustration by explaining why they and their entire genetic clade are lacking in so many ways. Better to let it out than bottle it up :).
 
Tricky said:
Quite correct on all points, but the question wasn't "is ad hominem ever logical?" it was "is ad hominem ever valid?" It is valid, if illogical, in certain circumstances. Flame wars come to mind, you pedantic mongrel taffy-loving... erm... something that is spelled without vowels. Maybe Phllygm.
Click to expand...

"Dyw", maybe?

(That's "god" in Welsh, so probably not . And I'm not Welsh, I just live here because property prices were a joke twenty years ago. Pedant, mongrel ... out and proud :)).

I wouldn't last a day in a flame war. I appreciate the skill, but I just can't hack it.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Click to expand...

The man put it very well. Evidence you find innately comforting calls for the closest examination.
 
CapelDodger said:
A good insult does both, and is recognised as doing so by the audience you're playing to. A bad insult is contemptible. Neither has anything to do with ad hominem argument, which is always invalid. Anyone who can't understand that is a dickhead, m'kay? :) (I just couldn't resist that.)
Click to expand...

I thought that was an example of poisoning the well, not of ad hominem.
 
Tricky said:
To answer the original question, it depends on the situation. In a debate, ad hominems are virtually always logical fallacies. In a courtroom, however, they are perfectly acceptable.
Click to expand...

I think the reason for that is that the nature of the argument being advanced in a courtroom is typically very different to the type of argument found here. Consider these two hypothetical examples:

1. (JREF)
Poster 1: It's clear to me that Steven Jones's microsphere analysis shows elements that could only have possibly been present due to thermate.
Poster 2: Steven Jones is a well known kook, so you're wrong.

2. (Courtroom)
Witness: I clearly saw the man who robbed my shop, and despite the balaclava covering the bottom half of his face I'm certain it was the defendant.
Counsel: The defendant is Jewish, and you're the editor of the newsletter of a local anti-semitic organisation, so your testimony should be disregarded.

The first example is clearly an ad hominem fallacy, because the character of the person advancing the argument is irrelevant to the content of the argument. In the second example, the witness is in effect appealing to his own authority, and the attack on his motives is therefore crucial to the evaluation of his honesty. Therefore, the ad hominem in this case isn't a fallacy.

We have a regular poster on the CT forum who claims that his expertise in marine architecture makes him an authority on the WTC collapses. Addressing that assertion isn't, therefore, an ad hominem fallacy, but a legitimate part of evaluating his claims, even though it's an approach that addresses the arguer rather than the argument. As far as I can see, though, that's about the only circumstance where ad hominem isn't fallacious.

Dave
 
An Ad Hominen tends to raise alarm bells within me with regards the strength of the attacker's argument. A strong logical counter to a proposition by another poster requires only a deconstruction of the original statement and indication where there are flaws. A starting point that the OP is a notorious drunk, for example, and therefore cannot possibly be right is clearly illogical - many ad hominems are more subtle than this but they follow the same non sequitur.

After this has been completed one can then proceed to say whether one thinks the OP is a stranger to veracity or, indeed, a complete qunt - but this is an optional extra and should not form part of the main argument which should be able to stand alone.
 
Last edited:
Ad Hominem is often confused for simple insult. The two things aren't the same thing. Insulting someone is fun. :) An Ad Hominem argument is one that bases the argument on the insult, in an illogical way.

For instance, if you claim that Michael Jordan is the best basketball player ever, I could counter that he has a gambling problem and in a jerk to his fans. In that case, I've made the logical fallacy, because his personal flaws have little or nothing to do with his on-court skills. On the other hand, if I outline his negative impacts to the game, and show how other players have achievements that make them more deserving of the top spot, and then add that he's a jerk, then I've made a good argument and threw in an insult for fun, and the insult doesn't invalidate my argument.
 
Dave Rogers said:
I think the reason for that is that the nature of the argument being advanced in a courtroom is typically very different to the type of argument found here. Consider these two hypothetical examples:

1. (JREF)
Poster 1: It's clear to me that Steven Jones's microsphere analysis shows elements that could only have possibly been present due to thermate.
Poster 2: Steven Jones is a well known kook, so you're wrong.

2. (Courtroom)
Witness: I clearly saw the man who robbed my shop, and despite the balaclava covering the bottom half of his face I'm certain it was the defendant.
Counsel: The defendant is Jewish, and you're the editor of the newsletter of a local anti-semitic organisation, so your testimony should be disregarded.

The first example is clearly an ad hominem fallacy, because the character of the person advancing the argument is irrelevant to the content of the argument. In the second example, the witness is in effect appealing to his own authority, and the attack on his motives is therefore crucial to the evaluation of his honesty. Therefore, the ad hominem in this case isn't a fallacy.
Click to expand...
Again, I don't disagree. Perhaps I'm only making a semantic argument on the basis of the thread title. "Ever" covers a lot of bases. Truly, the whole concept of "character witnesses" is a logical fallacy. It doesn't matter how good or how bad the person was in the past. Strictly speaking, that has no logical bearing on the crime under discussion. Yet past behavior is frequently used in court cases, especially in the sentencing phase. It is not exactly logical, but I can make a strong argument that it is justified.

No, the boards here are not a court. I realize that.

Dave Rogers said:
We have a regular poster on the CT forum who claims that his expertise in marine architecture makes him an authority on the WTC collapses. Addressing that assertion isn't, therefore, an ad hominem fallacy, but a legitimate part of evaluating his claims, even though it's an approach that addresses the arguer rather than the argument. As far as I can see, though, that's about the only circumstance where ad hominem isn't fallacious.
Click to expand...
That is clearly exposing a false appeal to authority rather than an ad hom, in my opinion (as always).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom