Description of Ad Hominem Fallacy:
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem
1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
~~The Nizkor Project, 1991-2009
Ok. But I still say discounting everything out of hand without considering it is fuddy duddy science, and prone to be viewed with suspicion.
You're missing the point entirely. This has nothing to do with discounting out of hand or fuddy duddy science.
Emile, that is a phenomenal expression! Haven't encountered that in years. Thank you, it just made my afternoon a bit more "chuckle-ier".
Ivan Nizkor was a known pedophile and sheep buggerer, so I really don't care about his views on the subject.
Man, the guy devotes his life to defining rhetorical devices, and you'd think they'd call him "Ivan the rhetorical genius."
... but you bugger one sheep...
I had similar thoughts about the use of this term, following a recent debate on here, where it was used by a HubPages employee. No matter what the personal views of a person, there are always going to be people who disagree strongly with them. This however does not invalidate the views of person A. Even when the person would seem to hold minority views, the fact that the majority would disagree with them does not invalidate them. There was a time when Galileo suggested that the Sun was the centre of the solar system.. This was a minority view, rejected by the Church and society. As it turns out, he was correct. So, even when person A is rejected by not just person B, but by the majority, this in itself should not be taken as proof that person A is incorrect.
Why is it so important to be RIGHT all the time? People have different opinions, views. It makes the world a less boring place. Imagine if we all just thought the same thing.
Normally, I will leave people to wallow in their ignorance because I know that most of them don't care anyhow.
Only on matters where the outcome of their false ideas effects me in some way do I normally intervene. For example, as a mathematician, I am statistically likely to be funded by a department of government in some capacity at some point in my life. Therefore, when I notice that persons are falsely arguing a point in which the final decision could lead to reduction in the perceived need for research funding in sciences, then it becomes a relevant issue to me.
In the other cases, it is a matter of academic integrity to me. It is the responsibility of those who know what is right to share it with those who do not. Note that this is not the same as academic evangelism, in which the object is to force feed academic knowledge to people.
There is a difference between an ad hominem fallacy and an ad hominem attack.
Fair enough, it would be great if you folks would spend the time to distinguish those differences for the members here. Don't you think if you did, the amount of such attacks would decrease, the reporting of such attacks would decrease and hence the amount of work you folks would need to do in these matters would decrease as would the bans.
Seems like a win-win situation for all involved.
There is no difference. Once the ad hominem fallacy is used in a persuasive argument, it is by virtue of what it is, an attack, specifically against character. Any high-school debating team knows that using this fallacy negates the logic of an argument.
Excellent point. That could very well be some of the false reasoning behind bans that were questioned or appeared unfair. It would seem that perhaps those who initiate the bans may not fully understand that.
The difference is that an ad hominem attack isn't necessarily an attempt at logical argument. Some ad hominem attacks are made just out of malice, for instance (or trolling, or whatever).
As I said before, ad hominem attacks are not allowed, whether they are an attempt at argument or something else altogether.
For the completely, er, clueless among us, can you give an example of someone using an ad hominem fallacy and an example of someone using an ad hominem attack? Maybe you could create two forum posts by fictional HP members to show us the precise difference.
Ad hominem fallacy: "Your opinion against health care reform is meaningless, since you don't even have a college education." (Poor, fallacious argument)
Ad hominem attack: "You're an idiot." (attack against a person)
So... just to get my head round this, might come in handy if say there was an argument over how to barbecue something.
IF I were to say you cannot barbecue that way because you have your head stuck up your ass...
What type of ad homithing is that? And is it a ban?
Way to get to the point, Mark! Well done.
'IF I were to say you cannot barbecue that way because you have your head stuck up your ass...
What type of ad homithing is that?'
I think that would be called flexibility.
There are four categories of Ad Hominem, that one is called the Ad Hominem Abusive.
There are also the Ad Hominem Tu Quoque, Circumstantial and Guilt by Association fallacies. All of these should be well defined here in order for the TOS to be valid when it comes to Ad Hominems and banning.
Hi Jason, I'm wondering if you folks will indeed take the time to explain and define the 'personal attack' rule for us so it is clear and well understood? As I mentioned earlier, it would be a win-win situation for all concerned. Or, will the members have to go on a trial-and-error basis by getting banned? Thanks in advance.
But they are attempts at argument, specifically argument designed to persuade. We could go round in circles about this.
Beelzedad offered insight into why trashing someone's character is counterproductive to discussing and evaluating an issue.
Glad to hear that ad hominem attacks are not allowed; maybe the more understood words on this site would be something like: Make your point with facts, not with trashing another's character.
I think they call that, "Playing nice in the sandbox," something too many never learned.
That is not true, Jason. I thought to do a little experiment and reported what were blatant and obvious personal attacks and observed those members who made them to be happily posting away. Clearly, a banning here is not based on the rules but some other criteria, politics and favoritism, most likely.
I suspect that's why you folks never bothered to define the differences as that would remove that ability to ban based on those other criteria. Of course, you folks are free to do so as it is your forum, but it makes the TOS look like a joke and your reasoning above entirely irrelevant.
"Why is it so important to be RIGHT all the time?" The kind of people who have ever so many enemies, believe that 'wrong' opinions
cause evil and generally decay the society
producing ever so much suffering. They are nice but have trouble getting along with people in general. They don't talk to me, which saves me a lot of time and trouble.
Maybe it's just a means to having your cake and eat it too.
Well all I know is that if I stay away from arguments I have a much easier and enjoyable forum experience. Doesn't always work - but definitely better than trying to get that oh so important point across.
No it doesn't always work. Sometimes even the most innocuous post can offend someone, and sometimes one can be drawn into an argument when this is the last thing wanted. People will find offence if they look hard enough for it. It is easier to try though to avoid such situations, although at times if the beliefs one holds dear are judged to be unfairly attacked, it is hard not to respond.
I have nothing to say. It would be called false because of those ad homomimimnee thingees anyway..
But I do agree.
I'm guessing the answers is "No" based on the silence, Jason? Folks will just continue to wonder if they will get banned through trial and error and you folks will be dogged with constant complaints and trying to explain to others why they were banned, thus wasting time and resources?
Oh well, it was worth a try.
by emrldphx5 years ago
As I'm not being allowed to discuss this interesting claim where it was originally posted by Mikel G Roberts, I will post my analysis here.Mikel uses the following definitions for his claim of scientific...
by SparklingJewel7 years ago
The Wall Street Journal asked to famous authors, Karen Armstrong and Richard Dawkins, to respond to this question. Here are their independent answers.These are short articles, to the...
by Chris Mills4 years ago
I was listening to two DJs on the radio. They were real clowns. One was "on the street," the other in the studio. The one on the street had a fake $100 bill which he put on the ground in...
by Alan3 years ago
If you claim to be christian, what difference does it make to your life? If I hear your proclamation, your words professing your “faith,” what am I likely to notice about you that is different than if you did not...
by Rishad I Habib11 months ago
The God Paradox - also known as the Omnipotence paradox which addresses the question whether the existence of an omnipotent entity is logically possible.Paradox of the stone (one version): "Could God create a stone...
by James Smith5 years ago
"Natural rights are rights which are "natural" in the sense of "not artificial, not man-made", as in rights deriving from deontic logic, from human nature, or from the edicts of a god. They are...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.