Ad Hominem
Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy where an argument is attacked by targeting the person making the argument rather than addressing the actual points being made. This tactic attempts to discredit the opponent's character or personal traits instead of engaging with the substance of their argument. It is important to recognize and avoid ad hominem attacks in rational discourse.
4 Key excerpts on "Ad Hominem"
eBook - ePub- Craig E. Carroll(Author)
- 2016(Publication Date)
- SAGE Publications, Inc(Publisher)
...Sergei A. Samoilenko Sergei A. Samoilenko Samoilenko, Sergei A. Ad Hominem Argument Ad Hominem argument 16 19 Ad Hominem Argument Argumentum Ad Hominem (“argument directed at the man”) is a logical fallacy that involves irrelevant responses directed at the personality of an opponent instead of the content of his or her claim. An Ad Hominem attack is intended to steer attention away from the issue under debate and toward the debater or the person addressing the issue. Attacks may include derogatory statements about personal traits or characteristics, condemnation of the person’s behavior, or speculation about the individual’s motives or special interests. This entry discusses Ad Hominem attacks and related fallacies, plus their impact on corporate reputation since most smear campaigns in modern politics and business follow this kind of pattern. Ad Hominem criticism is innately deceptive as it defies the principle of an ethical argument as an attempt to offer legitimate evidence against someone’s position and elicit determination of the truth. These attacks employ irrelevant reasoning, which is a part of Ralph H. Johnson and J. Anthony Blair’s taxonomy of basic fallacies. For example, the statement “You’re a blonde-haired speaker, and everyone knows blondes are ignorant” is irrelevant to the claim because a person’s hair color has nothing to do with the soundness of his or her argument. After all, it is the content that presents evidence for a claim and not the personal characteristics of the individual making the claim. A less blatant Ad Hominem casts doubts on a proposition asserted by a proponent. Thus, a prosecutor may ask the judge not to admit the testimony of a burglar because criminals are not trustworthy. Abusive Ad Hominem (also known as argumentum ad personam) usually involves an individual attacking an opponent’s traits in an adversarial context as a means to invalidate his or her arguments...
eBook - ePubThe Language of Persuasion in Politics
An Introduction
- Alan Partington, Charlotte Taylor(Authors)
- 2017(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...(2012) ‘A new approach to oppositions in discourse: The role of syntactic frames in the triggering of noncanonical oppositions’, Journal of English Linguistics 40(1): 41–73. Plug, H.J. (2010) ‘Ad-hominem arguments in Dutch and European parliamentary debates: Strategic manoeuvring in an institutional context’, in C. Ilie (ed.) European Parliaments under Scrutiny: Discourse Strategies and Interaction Practices (Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, 38), Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 305–328. Keys and commentaries TASK 1: Ad Hominem 1 The Ad Hominem is in the accusation that her critics’ ‘minds had been bought’. In this way, she avoids having to address their criticisms. TASK 2: Ad Hominem 2 In the following with which group is Prince Charles associated? The British aristocracy. How is this group brought into ridicule? By talk of its rediscovering medieval chivalry, jousts, castles and armour. What is the real object of criticism and how does the Ad Hominem argument attack it? The real object of criticism is a presumed unjustified opposition to modern farming techniques. The Ad Hominem depicts Charles and the British aristocracy as outdated and capricious (note the irony in ‘Prince Charles has rediscovered organic peasant farming’). Q3 The Conservatives intend to imply that Labour does not consider ethnic minorities to be truly British. TASK 6 In the speech we see powerful oppositions set up throughout. One of the most frequent forms for opposition is the simple category of negated opposition (x not y) and, more commonly (not x but y). You might have identified the following examples of this category: 1) The right of a people to decide their own destiny, to make their way in freedom, is not to be measured by the yardstick of colour or degree of social development...
eBook - ePub- Harry Gensler(Author)
- 2002(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...A “personal attack” argument can be either legitimate or fallacious. It’s legitimate in our example; here we conclude that Rick, because he violates rational standards, isn’t fully reasonable in his beliefs. It would be fallacious to draw the stronger conclusion that his beliefs must be wrong; to show his beliefs to be wrong, we must argue against the beliefs, not against the person. A more extreme case of the Ad Hominem fallacy was exemplified by those Nazis who argued that Einstein’s theories must be wrong since he was Jewish; being Jewish was irrelevant to Einstein’s competence as a scientist. Pro-con— correct form: The reasons in favor of act A are…. The reasons in favor of act A are …. The former reasons outweigh the latter. ∴ Act A ought to be done. Incorrect form: The reasons against act A are…. ∴ Act A ought to be done. The reasons in favor of getting an internal-frame backpack are. The reasons against getting an internal frame backpack are. The former reasons outweigh the latter. ∴ I ought to get an internal-frame backpack. This can be good reasoning. People sometimes make decisions by folding a piece of paper in half, and listing reasons in favor on one side and reasons against on the other; then they decide intuitively which side has stronger (not necessarily more) reasons. This method forces us to look at both sides of an issue before we decide. In the incorrect form, we just look at half the picture; this is called “stacking the deck.” We can expand our three “correct forms” into standard inductive and deductive arguments...
eBook - ePubThe Layman's Manual on Christian Apologetics
Bridging the Essentials of Apologetics from the Ivory Tower to the Everyday Christian
- Brian G. Chilton(Author)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- Resource Publications(Publisher)
...Appendix 2 THIRTY-THREE LOGICAL FALLACIES EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW 12 A s the late Norman Geisler once noted, “Logic deals with the methods of valid thinking.” 13 (Geisler 1999, 427). Logical fallacies, then, are errors in the way one thinks or presents an argument. Logical fallacies are important for everyone to know, but it is especially important for Christians to know since they are called to promote truth. Paul writes that the Christian should be in the practice of “laying aside falsehood, speak truth each one of you with his neighbor, for we are members of one another” (Ephesians 4 : 25, NASB). So, the Christian should know how to speak the truth and to avoid any fallacy of thinking. Unfortunately, many sites devoted to logic promote an atheist agenda. One might think that the atheist has a stranglehold on logic, but nothing further could be the case. Therefore, this article will provide 33 logical fallacies that every Christian, in fact every person, should know. Ad Hominem: This fallacy means literally “against the man.” This is a classic debate tactic. Instead of attacking an argument’s validity, the debater will instead attack one’s opponent. For example, some atheists have attacked the character of William Lane Craig instead of dealing with Craig’s cosmological arguments. This is an Ad Hominem fallacy because not only does Craig have wonderful character, his arguments are strong, as well. Attacking a person’s character without engaging the argument is an Ad Hominem fallacy. Ambiguity: The fallacy of ambiguity is used when the debater uses vague language that could be taken in a variety of ways. This is also known as someone speaking “out of both sides of their mouth.” Politicians are normally the worst culprits of this fallacy. When posed with a particular problem, the politician may claim that he or she may not have known about the issue when it is clear that the politician did...
