|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 12:14:17 [Permalink]
|
| Sometimes in arguments people can adopt a tone or on forums, a manner of 'speaking' which is very condescending without being overtly inflammatory. This allows people to be as insulting as they like while still having deniability. |
 |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 08/03/2009 : 12:32:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
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.
|
Shades of grey and a given context, which is what makes it complicated as well as fun.
Zample: "Your ears is put on crooked, your feet stink and you don't love Jesus, therefore your argument is worthless." Or, "Your argument is worthless because your ears is put on crooked, your feet stink and you don't love Jesus." Wherein lies the fallacy?
|
"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 : 12:33:35 [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.
|
Good point, Gorgo. In that, I'd humbly agree with Filthy and you.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 12:49:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Wherein lies the fallacy? |
In the "because" and "therefore."
But this: "Your ears is put on crooked, your feet stink and you don't love Jesus. And by the way your argument is worthless." That's not a logical fallacy, as there is no connection being made between the two. It might seem like legalistic hair-splitting, but formal fallacies are like that.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 13:52:33 [Permalink]
|
We know people who use ad homs are stupid because they are stupid.
We know people who claim they've been "ad hommed" are stupid because they are stupid.
We know stupid people are stupid because they are stupid.
More seriously...
For some folks, an attack on their position is seen as a direct personal attack on themselves. This may be partly a cheap rhetorical ploy; it may be partly a function of the content of the position. If the position prescribes deeply internalizing and personalizing a position, then any critique is a direct personal attack in their minds.
So, be careful of claims of ad hominem. Some of them are disingenuous (deliberately so or not). |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 08/03/2009 : 14:58:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
We know people who use ad homs are stupid because they are stupid.
We know people who claim they've been "ad hommed" are stupid because they are stupid.
We know stupid people are stupid because they are stupid.
More seriously...
For some folks, an attack on their position is seen as a direct personal attack on themselves. This may be partly a cheap rhetorical ploy; it may be partly a function of the content of the position. If the position prescribes deeply internalizing and personalizing a position, then any critique is a direct personal attack in their minds.
So, be careful of claims of ad hominem. Some of them are disingenuous (deliberately so or not).
|
This is true; I think of it as the Thin-Skinned Fallacy. These usually don't last long, as they often make the discussion unnecessarily heated, and the real ad hom begins. The late, less than lamented HYBRID comes to mind. Heh, he was fun, too. It took nothing more than disagreement to set him off and start demanding draconian moderation for everybody except himself. As I recall, the topic had to do with the Nephilim, and the Cardiff Giant was involved in there somewhere.
I have a method I've been developing for some time; be rigidly courteous and stick to the topic like a Congressman to his mailing list. Do not allow the other guy to get away from that topic. If he is arguing in good faith, the discussion will go well; if not, sooner or later he'll melt down and try to turn it into a pissing contest.
If you can't blind them with brilliance, and you won't, nor dazzle them with bullshit, possible but unlikely as the only bullshit that registers with them is their own, then simply grind them down. Illegitimi carborundum, eh?
|
"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 : 15:22:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by filthy
Wherein lies the fallacy? |
In the "because" and "therefore."
But this: "Your ears is put on crooked, your feet stink and you don't love Jesus. And by the way your argument is worthless." That's not a logical fallacy, as there is no connection being made between the two. It might seem like legalistic hair-splitting, but formal fallacies are like that.
|
Ah, but it's not that simple; we have a second fallacy at work here: Non sequitur. Assuming that they are not part of the topic, ears, feet and the luv'a Jesus have nothing to do with the discussion, and that can quickly evolve into a Red Herring leading to a Straw Man. Far better to say, "Your argument is worthless because you haven't thought [the topic] through. I fear that your stinkin' feet, crooked ears and lovin' Jesus has become a distraction."
|
"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 : 15:38:25 [Permalink]
|
Actually, it is not a non-sequitur either, as it is not logically related to the argument being made, it can't be a logical fallacy. It just is a good old fashioned gratuitous insult.
But: "You have crooked feet and therefore your argument is invalid" would be both an ad hominem and a non-sequitur, after all, how one's state of feet influence one's argument? |
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 : 15:41:41 [Permalink]
|
If you use name calling to avoid an argument it could be considered a fallacy, sure. Just not an ad hominem.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 16:26:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
It just is a good old fashioned gratuitous insult. |
Bingo.
But really, insults don't have to be logical fallacies in order to recommend that skeptics avoid them. For those interested, appeals to simple civility should suffice.
|
"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 16:29:50 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 18:39:27 [Permalink]
|
filthy, I see you found the Nebraska Man reference.
Ridicule, which includes direct insults, can be a useful tool. Not for "converting" tools like Tipok, but for getting the so-called "fence sitters" to see what a ridiculous position people like Tipok have taken, and inch away from it. Trying to have a rational discussion with Tipok himself is probably a lost cause.
Anyone who says the crap that he's said should be laughed off the stage. These days, this sort of ignorance cannot be justified, even if we are all willing to forgive and forget once people like Tipok make a sincere effort at learning. If he had shown even a hint at being interested in real answers, my tone would have been very different. But it's clear to me that he just came here to preach that anti-evolution dogma, and then declare himself to be persecuted when people pointed out his faults. Odds are, he feels really good about the way things went down. He really showed us!  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 19:03:56 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
Anyone who says the crap that he's said should be laughed off the stage. These days, this sort of ignorance cannot be justified, even if we are all willing to forgive and forget once people like Tipok make a sincere effort at learning. |
We should not tolerate ignorance, but that doesn't mean we can't be civil. At the very least we should try being civil, at first. Otherwise we run the risk of coming off as thugs, no matter how correct we are. SFN is a tough site already. It has that reputation. I'm not sure what the fence sitters will learn if we move straight into ridicule mode every time some new person starts out by saying something ridiculous. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 19:23:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
filthy, I see you found the Nebraska Man reference.
Ridicule, which includes direct insults, can be a useful tool. Not for "converting" tools like Tipok, but for getting the so-called "fence sitters" to see what a ridiculous position people like Tipok have taken, and inch away from it. Trying to have a rational discussion with Tipok himself is probably a lost cause.
Anyone who says the crap that he's said should be laughed off the stage. These days, this sort of ignorance cannot be justified, even if we are all willing to forgive and forget once people like Tipok make a sincere effort at learning. If he had shown even a hint at being interested in real answers, my tone would have been very different. But it's clear to me that he just came here to preach that anti-evolution dogma, and then declare himself to be persecuted when people pointed out his faults. Odds are, he feels really good about the way things went down. He really showed us!
|
A couple of threads got by me (my own, no less ) and I missed the bulk of his nonsense. Had I cauight it. well, you know's how I go's. The guy is not discussable, if that's a word.
Ridicule and sarcasm are indeed valuable and effective debate techniques if used judiciously. But they can backfire.
Will Tipok come back? I dunno. Depends on how much of a fight he wants to get into, I guess.
|
"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 : 19:54:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
We should not tolerate ignorance, but that doesn't mean we can't be civil. At the very least we should try being civil, at first. Otherwise we run the risk of coming off as thugs, no matter how correct we are. SFN is a tough site already. It has that reputation. I'm not sure what the fence sitters will learn if we move straight into ridicule mode every time some new person starts out by saying something ridiculous. |
The fact that it's ridiculous should be indication enough that treating it kindly isn't going to be worth our time or effort.
Generally speaking, we've seen three types of creationist here. The first says their ridiculous crap, gets berated for it (even in the most-gentle of terms) and leaves, either humiliated or self-righteous. The second says their ridiculous crap, gets berated for it and does nothing but insult us back until he (almost always) gets tired of it and leaves (sometimes to come back later and insult us some more). Neither of these two types are anyone we can work with, so I'd prefer that they leave on their own as quickly as possible.
The third type says their ridiculous crap, gets berated for it and is honestly confused that anyone finds what they've said worthy of ridicule. They are genuinely curious about why they're wrong, and will - to some extent or other - have a productive conversation with us. This type is extremely rare (I think I've seen only one or two since I've been here) but is the sort who is most likely to see reason.
So ridicule is also a sort of litmus test. It allows us to weed out the 99% or so of creationists who will be wastes of time, forever, and open constructive dialog with that shiny 1% who can follow an argument from premises to conclusion.
Hell, look at Creation88. He strutted in here with all the bravado his 16 years gave him, spouted off, got smacked down and because of getting berated, had a "were my actions Christ-like?" moment and became a much more humble person. Sure, he still doesn't "believe in" evolution, but if he still had the time to hang out with us, we'd actually be able to discuss the evidence with him, instead of just having him quote AiG or Kent Hovind at us.
I honestly don't know of any "converts" from the sort of serious anti-evolution position that Tipok demonstrated who were won over by a gentle, guiding hand. The few converts to rationalism that I'm aware of were all won through sudden shocks to the system, so to speak. The proverbial "clue-by-four."
And the fence-sitting lurkers who might read these posts probably (mostly) fall into the same three categories. I'm only interested in the ones who will (for example) see me laughing at someone mentioning "Nebraska Man" as an evolutionist lie and either step up and ask us questions, or go find out for themselves why I find the concept ridiculous, or just wait around for one of us to point out that the guy who mis-identified the pig's tooth never thought it was a "man," or a "missing link," and never offered up the tooth as "proof of evolution," the points that the creationist use of the story depend on.
Because the people who might dismiss us only because we ridicule are making an ad hominem argument to themselves, typically along the lines of "if they use insults, they must not have any real arguments." I'll leave it to Chris Mooney to try to coddle those people into seeing science as valuable, since historically, it doesn't seem to work, and I no longer want to waste my time. I've got too much stuff on my plate as it is.
But you know me, Kil, and my history: I'm not suggesting that this approach is the right one to use in every situation. It's just that in the particular scenario with Tipok, it seemed to be the right way to go. It's not like I laid into him on his very first post. I came in after he'd already had some back-and-forth going, and I saw where it was headed. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 20:10:15 [Permalink]
|
filthy:
Ridicule and sarcasm are indeed valuable and effective debate techniques if used judiciously. But they can backfire. |
Indeed.
There is no doubt that I use both ridicule and sarcasm, even heavily. But they rarely appear as my first response to a ridiculous post from someone new to SFN. And that's not very likely to change.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Why go ad hom? I don't understand.
