|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 08/03/2009 : 04:03:31
|
Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person).
This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.
It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponents are fascists" with "My opponents' arguments are fascist."
I've noticed that over the last couple of years, we have been very quick to indulge in ad hom, sometimes from the first post someone, usually a newbie makes. I will use Tipok in the Meth thread as the most recent example. He scarcely got his post written before he was wished the benefit of his fantasy and called a “Flintstoner,” or some-such, and I feel a need to apologize to him for that.
Sorry Tipok, wish it hadn't happened, bro.
Friends, this ain't right. Name-calling and personal insinuations are not the way to argue, not the way it's done. The way it is done is to hear the man's argument, then refute it if you can. Never show the person any disrespect until he earns it by dissing you.
Now, I've been banned from a few forums, but only once for going ad hom. That was when I called Sarfati a jumped-up apothecary, but it was only after he attacked me personally.
If the other guy opens the door first, then it is perfectly permissible to step through it and retaliate in kind. But only to counter-punch (and make it a damned good one -- ad hominem too, is an art form).
While we get a few in here looking for a fight, and get they one, most come to argue and discuss, and should be welcomed whatever their points of view, and treated respectfully. And if they wish to stay, they should be given a seat at the table. I for one, am weary of people doing perhaps a dozen posts, then splitting in a cloud piss-off. It's gotta cease!
The thought occurs; this little writing might offend some folks around here. If so, well, shit, bring it on; I've been there before and it needed to be said.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 06:04:50 [Permalink]
|
Okay, you are referring to me, Filthy. I did not call him/her a "Flintstoner." Instead, I wrote of Tipok's "Flintstones fantasy" (correctly, I think), pointing out the absurdity of his/her weird belief system. (Tipok then confirmed that he/she believes humans and dinosaurs actually walked the earth together less than 10,000 years ago.) My comment was definitely fair game in a skeptic forum, in my opinion.
That was a pungent, though not original, thing to say about a dumb belief. I think it was a justifiable statement, and not an ad hominem. But I am guilty (in another thread) of calling Tipok a "poor, benighted fool." I apologize for posting that ad hom. I should have kept that observation to myself.
Still, it was Tipok who clearly came here to troll. Tipok made, then refused to substantiate, several wild charges, but continued to insult our members in general. Tipok definitely has a head filled with the stupidest of YEC talking points, something I think of as an obscene waste of gray matter.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 08/03/2009 06:22:05 |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 08/03/2009 : 06:56:25 [Permalink]
|
Nevertheless, the "Flintstone fantasy" is still an ad hom comment. It is far better to insist on an explanation for the fantasy rather than just cast it about.
Me, I've taken to the tactic of simply grinding them down with factual argument and pointing out the flaws in their own statements. And all done with a cheery smile. If they are truly trolling, it drives them insane. You don't take their bait, but when they jump all over yours, then you can have some fun. Remember Bigbrain? I had a blast with him and was genuinely sorry to see him go. Hell, I wish he'd come back; I'd grown very fond of his lunacy.
If this was the first time it happened, I would have never have said a word, but it is not. We've lost not a few from just this very thing, and I too am not without some guilt in the matter -- write in haste, repent at leisure. But it doesn't need to be that way. We need to think before we post; do a little research if necessary -- they'll still be around when we're done with it.
I really don't care what someone else's beliefs are, even the most crackpot ones. But I am perfectly willing to discuss any them without resorting to personal attacks until I feel called upon to do so. And I rather dislike the term "trolling" used as a sort of a catch-all aimed at another. Save it for the real trolls such as Latinjarl or Jerome. If Tipok is indeed trolling, and I am not at all convinced of it, yet, he's not very good at it, is he?
In short, we all need to clean up our acts in order that the forum might prosper with new and interesting membership.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 07:37:21 [Permalink]
|
I'm not sure If I went ad hom on him. You would think that I would be, but I'm not. Seems to me my focus was on a point of order. It's true that I became somewhat snarky when he refused to back up his accusations, and there were a load of them. But mostly I was laying out the rules for engagement, and told him several times that it's okay with me to argue evolution/creation, as long as certain rules are followed.
I also don't think Tipok was trolling. But he used a method of accusation and refusal to back it up that is, shall we say, very troll like? With an attitude of "I'm here to call you cheats and liars, and feel no need to back up those assertions, but you should tell my why you aren't a cheats and a liars" is baiting. It may not be intentional, but it's still baiting.
I would appreciate any criticism of the approach I took in my few posts to Tipok.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 07:51:48 [Permalink]
|
I agree with Mooner that what he said probably isn't ad hom, but I hope this doesn't get too lost in definitions about ad hom, as I think what Fil is asking is can we do better?
I'd like to learn to be helpful rather than attacking, if possible. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 08:01:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
I agree with Mooner that what he said probably isn't ad hom, but I hope this doesn't get too lost in definitions about ad hom, as I think what Fil is asking is can we do better?
I'd like to learn to be helpful rather than attacking, if possible.
|
Exactly!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 08:08:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I'm not sure If I went ad hom on him. You would think that I would be, but I'm not. Seems to me my focus was on a point of order. It's true that I became somewhat snarky when he refused to back up his accusations, and there were a load of them. But mostly I was laying out the rules for engagement, and told him several times that it's okay with me to argue evolution/creation, as long as certain rules are followed.
I also don't think Tipok was trolling. But he used a method of accusation and refusal to back it up that is, shall we say, very troll like? With an attitude of "I'm here to call you cheats and liars, and feel no need to back up those assertions, but you should tell my why you aren't a cheats and a liars" is baiting. It may not be intentional, but it's still baiting.
I would appreciate any criticism of the approach I took in my few posts to Tipok.
|
You're cool. I had only seen the one thread, Meth, involving him and have now looked up another. He's starting to open The Door, looks to me like. We shall see.
Anyhow, I was merely using him as an example. There have been others.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 08:23:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
He's starting to open The Door, looks to me like. We shall see. |
Looks to me like Tipok, equipped with the arrogance of ignorance, has a one-way door. When Nebraska Man is cited as an example of evolutionist lies, you know you're dealing with someone who isn't interested in reality. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 08:31:10 [Permalink]
|
Just want to point something out here. An argumentum ad hominem is when you say a person is wrong because they fit the name you are calling them.
ex- What do you know, you are only 12!
You are wrong, but what should we expect from a christian anyway!
And so on.
If you are not using the name to falsely justify your criticism of their argument, then you are not commiting a fallacy of logic.
All too often people use "ad hom" as a description for simple name calling and insults. While those things are not productive or useful in an argument(typically) they are also not informal or formal logical fallacies.
Nothing wrong with calling a 'tard a 'tard, IMO.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 08:42:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by filthy
He's starting to open The Door, looks to me like. We shall see. |
Looks to me like Tipok, equipped with the arrogance of ignorance, has a one-way door. When Nebraska Man is cited as an example of evolutionist lies, you know you're dealing with someone who isn't interested in reality.
|
Another thread I've missed! Where'd dedodat?
But I must remind; most if not all of our lurkers are interested in reality, and I suspect that they like a good fight as well. The hinges of The Door begin to creak ominously.... Nebraska Man indeed!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 08/03/2009 08:44:45 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 08:56:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Just want to point something out here. An argumentum ad hominem is when you say a person is wrong because they fit the name you are calling them.
ex- What do you know, you are only 12!
You are wrong, but what should we expect from a christian anyway!
And so on.
If you are not using the name to falsely justify your criticism of their argument, then you are not commiting a fallacy of logic.
All too often people use "ad hom" as a description for simple name calling and insults. While those things are not productive or useful in an argument(typically) they are also not informal or formal logical fallacies.
Nothing wrong with calling a 'tard a 'tard, IMO.
|
I might say that the 'tard's argument is something that might be expected of a 'tard and an especially stupid one at that.
I must disagree that name-calling, et al. are not ad hom fallacies. After all, they are an attack on the person rather than the argument. Always attack the argument, and if you do it right, the 'tard will appear unbidden.
I knew I was gonna get you in on this! 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 09:32:06 [Permalink]
|
I like to say, it's not an as hom! It's diagnostic!
If you are attacking the actual arguments, and it was the case with the Flintstone comment, disparaging the absurdity of young earth creationism, it is not a logical fallacy. It might be harsh or unwarranted but it was still relevant to the debate.
Now, I tend to agree with the core of your post, that we should discuss calmly and always thrive for a logical, reasoned and evidence backed argumentation and I generally tries to do so myself, although I can always slip up.
Let's thrive for a better and more rational forum, after all, we have facts and reason on our side, it's the whole objective of the whole movement, so, let's try and use them. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 09:32:33 [Permalink]
|
The ad hominem fallacy occurs when you imply a person's argument is wrong because they are whatever name you are calling them.
Its also not always a fallacy of logic. Why should you accept medical advice from a cab driver? It isn't a fallacy of logic to reject cardiac medicine advice from a cab driver because they are a cab driver!
Attacks on a person or their character are not ad hom fallacies, they are just insults. It isn't faulty reasoning until you claim their argument is wrong because they are whatever name you call them.
It is an important distinction.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 09:59:09 [Permalink]
|
| You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 10:29:46 [Permalink]
|
| I'll take the flintstones argument over the "God put dino bones there for us to find" argument my schoolmate used to give me." |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 11:09:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
I must disagree that name-calling, et al. are not ad hom fallacies. After all, they are an attack on the person rather than the argument. |
Sorry, filthy, but Dude is right. I refer you to the the ad hominem fallacy fallacy:In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.
Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument. |
However, your main point about resorting to insults is well taken. Even militant atheist PZ Myers recommends the 3 comment rule.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/03/2009 11:11:50 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Why go ad hom? I don't understand.
