Let's settle this - Ad hominems

[Left]

My greatest concern as a Christian debater is that people spend more time talking their way out of how they commited a Logical Fallacy when it's pointed out, than they do formatting their post so they don't commit said fallacy in the first place.

For example, if person commits X logical fallacy, and I point it out and provide sufficient proof, they will search the internet and find an alternative-fact article that says they didn't commit said fallacy. And will keep on commiting said gray area over and over, when they could have just fixed it.

 

[Left]

So I can unleash 100 of my best insults on you and it would be a sound argument?

 

[USincognito]

So I can unleash 100 of my best insults on you and it would be a sound argument?

So's Law.

 

[SPF]

Like I said, there are actually two definitions of ad hominem, and I prefer the one where all personal attacks are pretty much ad hominem. As soon as someone insults me more than lightheartedly, I am completely done with the debate.

I believe you are asking about the fallacy known as ad hominem. If that's the case, I was not aware that there were two definitions, can you reference them?

The logical fallacy known as ad hominem is an attempt to undermine someone's case without actually engaging in it VIA either overtly or subtly attacking the person.

For example, let's say that Bob presents an argument as to why investing in ETFs is smarter than investing in mutual funds. I respond by saying that we shouldn't listen to Bob because he's only 20 years old and doesn't even have a masters in business finance, plus he's not even securities registered so he can't even invest his own money without help. Clearly he doesn't know what he's talking about.

That would be an ad hominem attack. Instead of engaging with the content of Bob's argument, I instead attacked him as a way of avoiding engaging with the actual argument.

However, let's say that instead as I began giving my response to Bob's argument that I started by saying, "before I begin, I wanted to say that I hate Bob and I think he smells like poop.... Now as for what Bob said, here's why I think he's wrong..." That would not be an ad hominem.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Like I said, there are actually two definitions of ad hominem, and I prefer the one where all personal attacks are pretty much ad hominem. As soon as someone insults me more than lightheartedly, I am completely done with the debate.

Sure, I can understand that it can feel insulting if someone says something critical of one's own person during a debate, but as Pigliucci & Boudry (2013) point out, some apparent ad hominems can actually be related to the nature of the Burden of Proof (pp. 10-11). So, not ALL apparent criticisms coming from other people during a debate are irrelevant. Some are, course, but some instances may at least be relevant to some limited extent.

Reference​

Pigliucci, M., & Boudry, M. (2014). Prove it! The burden of proof game in science vs. pseudoscience disputes. Philosophia, 42(2), 487-502. [LINK TO ARTICLE]

Here's another, longer article by the same guys (and ad hominem issues are addressed on pp. 8-12):

Boudry, M., Paglieri, F., & Pigliucci, M. (2015). The fake, the flimsy, and the fallacious: demarcating arguments in real life. Argumentation, 29(4), 431-456. [LINK TO ARTICLE]

 

[Left]

The second definition is kind of complicated. I would have to find the article I've seen.

Perhaps US or Larnie can elaborate on it?

 

[RDKirk]

No.

If the answer is: You're a butt and consequently your argument is wrong; that WOULD be an add hom.

Post #2 is correct.

The statement is, by definition, an ad hominem statement. It is not, however, an ad hominem fallacy because it's not an argument.

 

[RDKirk]

I think pretty much everyone using the phrase "ad hominem" means the fallacy, not just merely directing a comment at the person.

I don't think pretty much everyone uses it in that way at all.

 

[Larniavc]

Post #2 is correct.

The statement is, by definition, an ad hominem statement. It is not, however, an ad hominem fallacy because it's not an argument.

On mature reflection I reckon you're more accurate than I was.

 

[USincognito]

Examples:

You're an idiot. - Insult, but not really an ad hom because it doesn't even address their argument.
You're wrong because you're an idiot - ad hom.
You're wrong because you don't know what you're talking about - bordering on ad hom because it doesn't show whether they don't know what they're talking about or not.
If you think evolution is a lizard hatching a clutch of puppies, you don't want you're talking about - depending on how accurate the premise represents the other person's position, this is not an ad hom, but one needs to be careful about straw men.

 

[Strivax]

You say "God is real." and the responder you are arguing with says "You are a butt." Is that an ad hominem or not? I have heard arguments that it is, and arguments that it isn't.

Perhaps it's simply a case of unstated or assumed premises. I say: 'God is real'. You say: 'You are a butt'.

Maybe you mean:

premise 1: Only butts believe God is real
premise 2: You believe God is real
Conclusion: You are a butt.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[USincognito]

I don't think pretty much everyone uses it in that way at all.

Oh what do you know. You live in Plano.*


* I hope everyone sees what I did there.

 

[Left]

If people can't even agree that personal attacks are bad in the course of debate... then, I should really stop debating.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If people can't even agree that personal attacks are bad in the course of debate... then, I should really stop debating.

TOF, I think most ad hominems are out of place in a debate. However, what argumentation practitioners will probably point out is that there is a difference between the following two 'accusations':

1) "You are a butt, and it's no wonder you think as you do!"

2) "You are not qualified to speak about (such-and-such) topic, so I probably shouldn't listen to 'half' of what you say about this."

[And anyone who would like to qualify this further, feel free to step-in. ]

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Left]

"You are not qualified to speak about (such-and-such) topic, so I probably shouldn't listen to 'half' of what you say about this."

Sometimes this argument is logical, for example I can't give someone professional medical advice, but it's very often overused. Say a cowgirl has the answer to a tough theological question through faith. A theologian may very well dismiss her claim before hearing it, on that basis.

 

[RDKirk]

TOF, I think most ad hominems are out of place in a debate. However, what argumentation practitioners will probably point out is that there is a difference between the following to 'accusations':

1) "You are a butt, and it's no wonder you think as you do!"

2) "You are not qualified to speak about (such-and-such) topic, so I probably shouldn't listen to 'half' of what you say about this."

The second statement correctly avoids the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"You are not qualified to speak about (such-and-such) topic, so I probably shouldn't listen to 'half' of what you say about this."

Sometimes this argument is logical, for example I can't give someone professional medical advice, but it's very often overused. Say a cowgirl has the answer to a tough theological question through faith. A theologian may very well dismiss her claim before hearing it, on that basis.

Granted, this exception you pose can sometimes be the case, which is why there is the 'probably' placed in that second statement.

When it comes to Christian Theology, you may have a good point about the viewpoint of the 'cowgirl,' but the possible legitimacy of a 'non-expert' such as her would likely be more appropriate in a discussion between competing Christian claims over some distinct view of how theology is to be best understood....and this is what we see all over CF. And that can be a good thing here.

But, in philosophy and science, or in some other non-divinely influenced, technical fields of study, it is usually the experts who call the shots as to what may or may not be the most probable thing regarding such-and-such a topic. This isn't always the case, of course, but more of than not it is.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[durangodawood]

Its not an ad hom fallacy simply to insult someone. Thats just an insult.

 

[Gadarene]

If people can't even agree that personal attacks are bad in the course of debate... then, I should really stop debating.

No-one is saying that.

They're saying that personal attacks or insults are not in and of themselves an ad hominem.

 

[Left]

No-one is saying that.

Judging from that every Creationist thread has insults, they actually did. I'm just filling in the blanks.