argumentum ad hominem

[imind]

having a discussion of bias in the news. is the following an example of argumentum ad hominem?

i lead with...

"fox is bias and my proof is a study released by FAIR" (fairness and accuracy in reporting)

he responds with...

"FAIR is liberal and therefore bias (and presents no other evidence)"

i rejoin with...

"argumentum ad hominem"

he says...

"not argumentum ad hominem because the attack is aimed at my source and not me."



please, no discussion as to whether fox is biased or not.
preference for answers to come from rhetoricians, logicians, professors with relevant credentials, etc.

thank you.

 

[Verv]

He is right. Argumentum ad hominem is attacking the person, whereas he is attacking the source by questioning whether or not it is objective.

Argumentum ad hominem is often called 'attacking the messenger,' which you are, and so instead he attacked the source of the information.

If the source is invalid and bias, then the bit is generally thrown out, so he is valid on that one.

I am not a professor, but that is my take.

 

[imind]

He is right. Argumentum ad hominem is attacking the person, whereas he is attacking the source by questioning whether or not it is objective.

Argumentum ad hominem is often called 'attacking the messenger,' which you are, and so instead he attacked the source of the information.

If the source is invalid and bias, then the bit is generally thrown out, so he is valid on that one.

I am not a professor, but that is my take.

so why isn't it simply an ad hominem against FAIR? i don't see why it matters who is actually presenting the evidence in the debate, the information is still being disgarded, not because of the evidence itself, but rather because of where (or who) it came from.

what if the source isn't bias? can we dismiss it just because we think it bias?

 

[Verv]

he does have to make an argument that it is bias, certainly.

Sometimes the source really is bias. Sometimes it isn't.

If a source consistently misrepresents things, can it logically be trusted? No. But does that necessarily make the individual case right/wrong? No, so in a sense everything must be investigated to its' full end.

I see both sides of it.

 

[Prester John]

To be fair you haven't provided evidence that FAIR is fair!

The resolution would be to discuss the merits of FAIR or decide another agreeable method for determing bias.

 

[Lynden1000]

having a discussion of bias in the news. is the following an example of argumentum ad hominem?

i lead with...

"fox is bias and my proof is a study released by FAIR" (fairness and accuracy in reporting)

he responds with...

"FAIR is liberal and therefore bias (and presents no other evidence)"

i rejoin with...

"argumentum ad hominem"

he says...

"not argumentum ad hominem because the attack is aimed at my source and not me."



please, no discussion as to whether fox is biased or not.
preference for answers to come from rhetoricians, logicians, professors with relevant credentials, etc.

thank you.

As others have said, it's not ad hominem because he's not attacking you. And, to be more specific, even if his attack was against you, it still wouldn't necessarily be ad hominem. In an ad hominem argument, the person attempts to argue that he is right and/or you are wrong because there is something bad about *you.* This, of course, is faulty reasoning because you could be a flaming bunghole and still be entirely correct in your claim.

If anything, it could be considered an example of "poisoning the well" He's attempting to assert that because FAIR is "liberal" its results can be cavalierly dismissed with no examination.

He needs to defend his claim that FAIR is too biased to be considered a reliable source of information.

 

[TeddyKGB]

I agree that 'poisoning the well' is a more apropos fallacy.

 

[imind]

thank you all for responding and i hope you won't mind explaining further.

i had consulted wikipedia and the basic forms of both arguements were given as:

ad hom
1. A makes claim B;
2. there is something objectionable about A,
3. therefore claim B is false.

poisoning
1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

it would seem that the arguements for my discussion would fit better into the ad hom, whereas...

1. A (FAIR) makes claim B (fox is bias)
2. there is something objectionable about A (FAIR)
3. therefore claim B (fox is bias) is false

while i do agree that it could be poisonging the well, it seems more appropriately placed into ad hom.

is my presenting the arguement (versus FAIR presenting it) the only distinction to be made between the two fallacies?

again, thank you for your responses.


edited to add:
also, how does one go about proving bias? is there certain criteria involved?

 

[Lynden1000]

thank you all for responding and i hope you won't mind explaining further.

it would seem that the arguements for my discussion would fit better into the ad hom, whereas...

1. A (FAIR) makes claim B (fox is bias)
2. there is something objectionable about A (FAIR)
3. therefore claim B (fox is bias) is false

I see what you're saying, but there are a few fine-line points I'd like to make. The problem is, he *isn't* saying something objectionable about FAIR, unless you consider accusations of being politically liberal an insult. Now obviously some people do consider the word "liberal" to be an insult, but in general an accusation that a certain source is biased towards a particular political ideology is not an insult. In fact, it's actually a fair accusation. He would need to back it up, but in theory there's nothing at all wrong with suggesting that a source of information is biased and unreliable. Courts do it all the time.

Also a person is usually accused of ad hominem if they attack the person whom they are debating. In other words, if your opponent said something along the lines of "well you're stupid, you can't be expected to understand my argument." - that's ad hominem.

 

[AirPo]

I say ad Hominin. He did not respond to the argument FAIR made. Just called them liberal and therefore wrong.

Actually, both. Double whammy.

 

[imind]

again, thank you all for repsonding.

i would now again like briefly to talk about the issue of bias. how does one know if the site (or anything, for that matter) is biased or, more importantly, how do we know if their bias influenced their results?

i hope it can somehow move beyond subjectivity, as this arguement could go on without end, otherwise.

 

[DhikrAllah]

Decent enough band! I’d probably refer to it more as a fallacy of ’Guilt By Association’, though ’poisoning the well’ also applies. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html