- Sep 19, 2004
- 1,241
- 83
- 74
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
I have had the amazing experience lately of having two people totally screw up what an argumentum ad hominem was. I decided that I would draw from my philosophy grad school days and give a short lecture on what an ad hominem is and what it isn't. The issue came out of my now regretable agreement to be a moderator in that amateurishly run debate about YEC being taught in Texas schools. One of the discussions around ad hominems has come about from a discussion about the nature of Ramsey's statements. So, what exactly IS an ad hominem?
First off, it isn't when someone insults you. That is called an insult. Calling me a bad-breath, rear-licking dog, is not an ad hominem, it is an insult (and a pretty good one at that.)
In another thread I asked a guy if he had ever taken a philosophy course. He replied "ad hominem". But that isn't an ad hominem either. It is called a question. Questions are usually part of a conversation which human beings have. They are not novel nor are they a logical fallacy because no suggestion of the truth or falsity of some proposition has been alleged. If someone said to me "You can't know anything about logic because you are a physicist," that is an ad hominem. But if they then ask, "have you ever had a philosophy course, that is not an ad hominem, as pointed out above, it is a question. When we think questions are ad homs, we have major problems with argumentation on this board.
And a question like, "have you ever taken a philosophy course?" is not even an appeal to authority, unless I were then to say "I am right because I have taken a philosophy course", but that is a logical fallacy for another day.
There are two forms of ad hominems:
The abusive form:
it is committed when, instead of trying to disprove the truth of what is asserted, one attacks the man who made the assertion. Thus it may be argued that Bacons philosophy is untrustworthy because he was removed from his chancellorship for dishonesty. This argument is fallacious, because the personal character of a man is logically irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of what he says or the correctness or incorrectness of his argument. To argue that proposals are bad or assertions false because they are proposed or asserted by Communists( or by Hippies or by doves or by hawks, or by extremists) is to argue fallaciously and to be guilty of committing an argumentum ad hominem (abusive). Irving Copi, Introduction to Logic, (New York: MacMillan, 1972), p. 74-75
Now, I want to be sure that the distinction is clear. The fallacy is when you say that what the man says can't be true because he is a YEC or it can't be true because he is an evolutionist. Specifically, it is not merely an insult. It is the tying of the truth or falsity of the statement to the character or club membership of the speaker. If I say, it is well known that all bad-breath-rear-licking dogs never speak the truth, this is an ad hominem.
The second form is the circumstantial ad hominem. This is one I have had said of me several times by YECs. They say I believe what I do to keep my job (tying the truth or falsity of my statements to my need to eat)
"The other interpretation of the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, the 'circumstatiial' variety, pertains to the relationship between a person's beliefs and his circumstances. Where two men are disputing, one may ignore the question of whether his own contention is true or false and seek instead to prove that his opponent ought to accept it because of his opponent's special circumstances. This if one's adversary is a clergyman, one may argue that a certain contention must be accepted because its denial is incompatible with the Scripture. This is not to prove it true, but to urge its acceptance by by by that particular individual because of his special circumstances, in this case his religious affiliation. Or, if one's opponent is, say, a Republican, one may assent to it because it is implied by the tenets of his party. The classical example of this fallacy is the reply of the hunter when accused of barbarism in sacrificing unoffending animals to his own amusement. His reply is to ask his critic, 'Why do you feed on the flesh of harmless cattle?" The sportsman here is guilty of an argumentum ad hominem because he does not try ot prove that it is right to sacrifice animal life for human pleasure, but merely that it cannot consistently be decried by his critic because of the critic's own special circumstances, in this case his not being a vegetarian." Irving Copi, Introduction to Logic, (New York: MacMillan, 1972), p. 75-76
Now, the guy above who claimed I was making an argumentum ad hominem is not a yec, and I am sure fancies that he is quite knowledgeable. But the person who I discuss below, is also not a YEC and is insistent that the examples I will show you below (from the Nelson-Ramsey debate) are ad hominems. I can and have assured this person that they are NOT ad hominems because they do not tie the truth value of the claim to the special circumstances or the length of Aron-Ra's hair.
Now, before I post this, I want to make a statement. The person who claimed to me that the list below are ad hominems has also claimed that if I say anything nice about what Ramsey did in the debate, that therefore it must be evidence that I want RAmsey's science taught in TExas Schools. I don't. I think his science stinks to high heaven). But I say this, so that I can avoid having this indivudal try to smear me again with scurilous charges that I am in favor of YEC being taught. This person fancies themselves an intellectual but they simply have lost it when it comes to what an ad hom is. I have suspected that their definition of ad hom is anything that they don't like being said, which is a prejudice not an ad hominem.
Here is the list of Ramsey's supposed ad hominems
A. True to my suspicions before even agreeing to this debate, my
opponent
largely ignored the topic at hand. This topic is specific and should be
adhered to. While Nelson (a.k.a. his self-chosen moniker "Aron-Ra") may
think otherwise,
THis statement no where ties the truth or falsity of Nelson's claims to Nelson's character, hair length, religion, or special circumstances. It looks to me like it is a statement of disagreement (to the anonymous person who thinks saying something like this means I want YEC taught, this simply isn't so. ).
B. Aliens? Really! Where is "all the evidence" for this nonsense? Is
this
the beginning of "21st Century Just So Stories" by the Aron-Ra?
These are called questions. There is no reference to Aron-Ra's religion, hippie like hair, or any other trait. Nor does the statement say that Aron Ra beleives something because he has dark glasses and all dark glass-wearing people are known liars. (To the anonymous person: I didn't call Aron Ra a liar there--the person has a reading comprehension problem).
C. He should clarify whether or not he believes in abiogenesis, (or
spontaneous generation of life), and since Francisco Redi, Louis Pasteur,
and others disproved it over a century ago, why?
How on earth this could be called an ad hominem is way beyond me except by a pseudo-intellectual who has not had the work ethic to actually look up what ad hominem means.
D. Concocted possible explanations are not the same thing as empirical
proof.
When I pointed out that this is a statement all should agree with, I was asked if I thought Nelson's explanations were concocted. I was surprised by that. Frankly, I absolutely agree that concocted explanations are not the same thing as empirical proof. And I am proud of that
To the anonymous person: this does not mean I am calling Nelson's explanations concocted. In point of fact, I actually believe Mr. Ramsey's explanations are concocted, but, Mr. Ramsey, like everyone is entitled to have his statements evaluated for their truth value NOT upon what he believes (which is what you are doing and that IS an ad hominem) but upon whether or not the statement is actually true.
E. Having an evolutionist state that it might be possible to have a
transition no more proves it than Rudyard Kipling proved how the elephant got its trunk in his "Just So" stories. We should be honest and teach weaknesses of evolution.
Once again, there is no tie to Nelson's character, flawed or otherwise (no, anonymous person, I didn't say Nelson was a flawed character although, like me, he may have flaws). This is NOT an argumentum ad hominem.
Now, I want to make clear that I do not beleive that the things I saw presented as weaknesses for evolution are actual weaknesses. I need to say this or the person will somehow tell me I like YEC.
F. Students, including Nelson, should be taught the difference.
Once again, where is the tie to Nelson's character or circumstances? THere is none. I presume Nelson is a student, either in school, or like me a perpetually out of school student, and thus, calling Nelson a student which this statement implicitly does is not a bad thing. The ad hominem would be to claim that Nelson is wrong BECAUSE he is a student. But saying Nelson should be taught something is a good thing. We all have much to learn and one should try at every step.
(To the anonymous person, this does NOT mean that I want YEC taught in the schools, but I am sure you will interpret it that way).
And to the anonymous person, I see you just sent another one of your mis-communications called emails. If you want to identify yourself here do so, but I am through with private communication because everytime I say something you accuse me of something I didn't say.
By saying this I want to make sure that it is clear that it doesn't mean, as this person has suggested that I am helping Ramsey although I would like to help him out of his YEC views. And why exactly am I supposed not to try to help someone? One can't help a YEC out of his views by calling him names and being mean to him. Bob Schadewald an atheist was very instrumental in getting me to change my views from YEC to TE. He was NICE to me. I listened, but he still told me I believed ****, but I LISTENED. Something which won't result from being mean and nasty to them.
I presented this to show that it isn't only the YECs who get a bit out of line (I know, that is heresy, certainly no evolutionist could ever do that, but in this case I think it is so). Zeal for changing the YECs should not cloud rational judgment and should not mean we call things what they aren't. We should strive to be more careful and demanding of the facts than our opponents. And when wrong
First off, it isn't when someone insults you. That is called an insult. Calling me a bad-breath, rear-licking dog, is not an ad hominem, it is an insult (and a pretty good one at that.)
In another thread I asked a guy if he had ever taken a philosophy course. He replied "ad hominem". But that isn't an ad hominem either. It is called a question. Questions are usually part of a conversation which human beings have. They are not novel nor are they a logical fallacy because no suggestion of the truth or falsity of some proposition has been alleged. If someone said to me "You can't know anything about logic because you are a physicist," that is an ad hominem. But if they then ask, "have you ever had a philosophy course, that is not an ad hominem, as pointed out above, it is a question. When we think questions are ad homs, we have major problems with argumentation on this board.
And a question like, "have you ever taken a philosophy course?" is not even an appeal to authority, unless I were then to say "I am right because I have taken a philosophy course", but that is a logical fallacy for another day.
There are two forms of ad hominems:
The abusive form:
it is committed when, instead of trying to disprove the truth of what is asserted, one attacks the man who made the assertion. Thus it may be argued that Bacons philosophy is untrustworthy because he was removed from his chancellorship for dishonesty. This argument is fallacious, because the personal character of a man is logically irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of what he says or the correctness or incorrectness of his argument. To argue that proposals are bad or assertions false because they are proposed or asserted by Communists( or by Hippies or by doves or by hawks, or by extremists) is to argue fallaciously and to be guilty of committing an argumentum ad hominem (abusive). Irving Copi, Introduction to Logic, (New York: MacMillan, 1972), p. 74-75
Now, I want to be sure that the distinction is clear. The fallacy is when you say that what the man says can't be true because he is a YEC or it can't be true because he is an evolutionist. Specifically, it is not merely an insult. It is the tying of the truth or falsity of the statement to the character or club membership of the speaker. If I say, it is well known that all bad-breath-rear-licking dogs never speak the truth, this is an ad hominem.
The second form is the circumstantial ad hominem. This is one I have had said of me several times by YECs. They say I believe what I do to keep my job (tying the truth or falsity of my statements to my need to eat)
"The other interpretation of the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, the 'circumstatiial' variety, pertains to the relationship between a person's beliefs and his circumstances. Where two men are disputing, one may ignore the question of whether his own contention is true or false and seek instead to prove that his opponent ought to accept it because of his opponent's special circumstances. This if one's adversary is a clergyman, one may argue that a certain contention must be accepted because its denial is incompatible with the Scripture. This is not to prove it true, but to urge its acceptance by by by that particular individual because of his special circumstances, in this case his religious affiliation. Or, if one's opponent is, say, a Republican, one may assent to it because it is implied by the tenets of his party. The classical example of this fallacy is the reply of the hunter when accused of barbarism in sacrificing unoffending animals to his own amusement. His reply is to ask his critic, 'Why do you feed on the flesh of harmless cattle?" The sportsman here is guilty of an argumentum ad hominem because he does not try ot prove that it is right to sacrifice animal life for human pleasure, but merely that it cannot consistently be decried by his critic because of the critic's own special circumstances, in this case his not being a vegetarian." Irving Copi, Introduction to Logic, (New York: MacMillan, 1972), p. 75-76
Now, the guy above who claimed I was making an argumentum ad hominem is not a yec, and I am sure fancies that he is quite knowledgeable. But the person who I discuss below, is also not a YEC and is insistent that the examples I will show you below (from the Nelson-Ramsey debate) are ad hominems. I can and have assured this person that they are NOT ad hominems because they do not tie the truth value of the claim to the special circumstances or the length of Aron-Ra's hair.
Now, before I post this, I want to make a statement. The person who claimed to me that the list below are ad hominems has also claimed that if I say anything nice about what Ramsey did in the debate, that therefore it must be evidence that I want RAmsey's science taught in TExas Schools. I don't. I think his science stinks to high heaven). But I say this, so that I can avoid having this indivudal try to smear me again with scurilous charges that I am in favor of YEC being taught. This person fancies themselves an intellectual but they simply have lost it when it comes to what an ad hom is. I have suspected that their definition of ad hom is anything that they don't like being said, which is a prejudice not an ad hominem.
Here is the list of Ramsey's supposed ad hominems
A. True to my suspicions before even agreeing to this debate, my
opponent
largely ignored the topic at hand. This topic is specific and should be
adhered to. While Nelson (a.k.a. his self-chosen moniker "Aron-Ra") may
think otherwise,
THis statement no where ties the truth or falsity of Nelson's claims to Nelson's character, hair length, religion, or special circumstances. It looks to me like it is a statement of disagreement (to the anonymous person who thinks saying something like this means I want YEC taught, this simply isn't so. ).
B. Aliens? Really! Where is "all the evidence" for this nonsense? Is
this
the beginning of "21st Century Just So Stories" by the Aron-Ra?
These are called questions. There is no reference to Aron-Ra's religion, hippie like hair, or any other trait. Nor does the statement say that Aron Ra beleives something because he has dark glasses and all dark glass-wearing people are known liars. (To the anonymous person: I didn't call Aron Ra a liar there--the person has a reading comprehension problem).
C. He should clarify whether or not he believes in abiogenesis, (or
spontaneous generation of life), and since Francisco Redi, Louis Pasteur,
and others disproved it over a century ago, why?
How on earth this could be called an ad hominem is way beyond me except by a pseudo-intellectual who has not had the work ethic to actually look up what ad hominem means.
D. Concocted possible explanations are not the same thing as empirical
proof.
When I pointed out that this is a statement all should agree with, I was asked if I thought Nelson's explanations were concocted. I was surprised by that. Frankly, I absolutely agree that concocted explanations are not the same thing as empirical proof. And I am proud of that
To the anonymous person: this does not mean I am calling Nelson's explanations concocted. In point of fact, I actually believe Mr. Ramsey's explanations are concocted, but, Mr. Ramsey, like everyone is entitled to have his statements evaluated for their truth value NOT upon what he believes (which is what you are doing and that IS an ad hominem) but upon whether or not the statement is actually true.
E. Having an evolutionist state that it might be possible to have a
transition no more proves it than Rudyard Kipling proved how the elephant got its trunk in his "Just So" stories. We should be honest and teach weaknesses of evolution.
Once again, there is no tie to Nelson's character, flawed or otherwise (no, anonymous person, I didn't say Nelson was a flawed character although, like me, he may have flaws). This is NOT an argumentum ad hominem.
Now, I want to make clear that I do not beleive that the things I saw presented as weaknesses for evolution are actual weaknesses. I need to say this or the person will somehow tell me I like YEC.
F. Students, including Nelson, should be taught the difference.
Once again, where is the tie to Nelson's character or circumstances? THere is none. I presume Nelson is a student, either in school, or like me a perpetually out of school student, and thus, calling Nelson a student which this statement implicitly does is not a bad thing. The ad hominem would be to claim that Nelson is wrong BECAUSE he is a student. But saying Nelson should be taught something is a good thing. We all have much to learn and one should try at every step.
(To the anonymous person, this does NOT mean that I want YEC taught in the schools, but I am sure you will interpret it that way).
And to the anonymous person, I see you just sent another one of your mis-communications called emails. If you want to identify yourself here do so, but I am through with private communication because everytime I say something you accuse me of something I didn't say.
By saying this I want to make sure that it is clear that it doesn't mean, as this person has suggested that I am helping Ramsey although I would like to help him out of his YEC views. And why exactly am I supposed not to try to help someone? One can't help a YEC out of his views by calling him names and being mean to him. Bob Schadewald an atheist was very instrumental in getting me to change my views from YEC to TE. He was NICE to me. I listened, but he still told me I believed ****, but I LISTENED. Something which won't result from being mean and nasty to them.
I presented this to show that it isn't only the YECs who get a bit out of line (I know, that is heresy, certainly no evolutionist could ever do that, but in this case I think it is so). Zeal for changing the YECs should not cloud rational judgment and should not mean we call things what they aren't. We should strive to be more careful and demanding of the facts than our opponents. And when wrong
i·nem
adv.
