![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The information here is at odds with authorities like Meriam Webster. It completely neglects older and (arguably more literate) usage of the phrase "ad hominem." Twice I have modified this entry, citing well-regarded authorities such as Merriam Webster. Twice my changes have been reversed. The first time, my grammar was called into question. The current version is not beyond reproach stylistically ("involves"?). But I am concerned with the content, not the style. The second time my changes were reversed, no reason was given. I would like to discuss with the moderator what we can do to reach an agreement or compromise. I tried to find the email address of the second person to reverse my changes, but I have come up empty. How shall I proceed?
-- Added later. I received helpful advice from Guinnog. For one thing, he says I should post at the bottom of the talk page, which I will do in the future.
I put verbage at the beginning to indicate that the meaning of "ad hominem" discussed here is recent. Personally, I think it came about on the internet, but I can't prove it. I tossed in a couple of authoritative sources.
I removed the politically biased example of Deutsche Physiks. The movement was hardly reduced to such an innane logical fallacy. Keep the example free of politics.
Someone needs to link to his page, it's probably the best example of Ad hominem, evAr.-- I'll bring the food 13:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the paragraph on "political correctness" as being NNPOV. I realize that some may disagree, but to me it just looked like a screed against current-day progressive politics. Enforcement of political uniformity by shaming is nothing new, yet there was no mention of historical or right-wing usage of the technique. Perhaps if there were examples added that were anything other than both (a) current issues and (b) progressive politics, it might not be as much of an attempt to persuade the reader that left-wing politics are bad. Ironically, an ad hominem attack against the political left by attempting to paint lefties as nasty "ad hominem users." Very clever.
I had minor objections to the following as examples:
C'mon, we don't need even to mention anti-Semitism to illustrate the point.
I confess I don't see how this is an example of argumentum ad hominem. It resembles the circumstantial variety, but it isn't an attempt to discredit one's opponent. Maybe there's something called "ad hominem persuasion" that the article should explicitly describe, but I'd need to see evidence of such a thing.
Again, let's not go there. ;-) -- Larry Sanger
I don't want to be overly negative, but this article is wildly inaccurate. Firstly "argumentum ad hominem" doesn't mean "argument against the man" but "argument to the man" (the original sense was flattery). "pro hominem" is hopeless: firstly "pro" takes the ablative, so this should be "pro homine", but anyway this type of argument is called "argumentum ad verecundiam" (literally, "argument to shame", used to refer to an appeal to authority). Where is this stuff coming from? -- JohnKozak
I was thinking of adding a couple of paragraphs about valid uses of ad hominem. Something like:
For example:
When it is merely impractical but not impossible to verify a particular premise of an argument like this, then it may be rational but not logical to accept an ad hominem argument. What do you guys think? -- Taak 22:58, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
"Ravens are black because Bob says they are black and Bob is very smart."
Just a thought, but it seems to me that there are some cases of undoubtedly valid ad hominems that are not covered in the article. Cf. the following.
-- I know this, I read it in der Spiegel.
-- How could you read it - you don't even know German?
In this case you aren't really using an ad hominem; instead you're pointing out a false premise. The person's argument was based on saying that he read something in german, however this is not possible because he doesn't know that language, so his statement about reading der Spiegel (the premise used on his argument) is false. It is important to point out that ad hominem is a fallacy of relevance; it seeks to confuse matters by inserting on the debate an issue that is irrelevant to it (such as a personal quality). In this case, the person's knowledge of a language is not irrelevant because one of the premises used on his argument is based on that.
As has been pointed out in the discussion above, section "Validity" mistakes the definition of ad hominem. An ad hominem argument consists in criticizing an irrelevant feature of the author of a statement rather than the subject of the statement itself. In the example cited in the article, it is by no means irrelevant to determine whether the person has commited perjury or not since its testimony will be taken into account during the trial; in other words, it will be one of the premises considered when a conclusion is reached. Other similar examples have been commented above.
"An ad hominem argument consists in criticizing an irrelevant feature of the author of a statement rather than the subject of the statement itself. In the example cited in the article, it is by no means irrelevant to determine whether the person has commited perjury or not since its testimony will be taken into account during the trial; in other words, it will be one of the premises considered when a conclusion is reached. Other similar examples have been commented above."
The above comment is wrong as far as concerns deductive logic. Technically speaking ad hominem is never valid from the standpoint of deductive logic as the person making the argument is irrelevant. The argument is faulty or valid on it's own merits. Any reference to credibility whether good ( argumentum ad verecundiam), bad, or neutral is irrelevant. Therefore any mention of credibility is a fallacy in deductive logic. Other forms of logic may use it under the explanation above but deductive logic concerns itself only with premisses which are known to be facts. Quadzilla99 03:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
“The ad hominem fallacy is committed when one attempts to discredit an argument by attacking the source of the argument. But not all ad hominem arguments involve the ad hominem fallacy; in fact, most ad hominem arguments do not commit the ad hominem fallacy. (Many people regard all ad hominem arguments as automatically fallacious. That has the advantage of being easy; it has the disadvantage of being wrong.) An ad hominem argument commits the ad hominem fallacy only if it attacks the source of an argument and claims that because of some flaw in the source of the argument the argument itself is flawed” [Bruce N. Waller, Critical Thinking: Consider the Verdict Fifth Edition (New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005) 181.]
“So not all ad hominem arguments are fallacious. To the contrary, in one situation ad hominem arguments are quite valuable. When a claim is based on testimony - rather than argument - then ad hominem arguments are an appropriate and important means of challenging the claim.” [Bruce N. Waller, Critical Thinking: Consider the Verdict Fifth Edition (New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005) 182.]
Wpraeder 16:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there anything to be written about the legal relevance of the tu quoque argument? Nuremberg Trials mentioned that the argument was "removed" but to me it seems as if no law could accept it. -- Get-back-world-respect 22:51, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I made a technical correction. Perhaps I should have marked it as a "minor edit" but chose not to do so. The example given for the "You-too" form of the ad hominem tu quoque used the phrase "convicted of libel." I do not believe that libel has been made a crime in any U.S. jurisdictions and, therefore, one cannot be convicted of it. One can, however, be liable for libel or be sued successfully for libel in a civil proceeding. Any disagreement with this? --
Ecoppola 17:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
1. Is it an ad hominem fallacy to discredit a minister's argument about marriage on the grounds that he has never been married?
a. True
b. False
2. What is the literal translation of the Latin term Ad Hominem?
a. Against the man
b. Against the arguer
c. Contextless appeal that sound the same but has a different spelling.
d. Contextless appeal that sound the same but has a different meaning.
3. It still an ad hominem fallacy bring up some ones objectionable characteristics even when arguing over his qualifications for a task?
a. True, there is no pretence of rationality in logic.
b. True, a patter in a series is not a reasonable and suffichant basis for future events.
c. False, fallacies only apply to the clames of an argument not the argument it self.
d. False, people should be accountable for there past.
4. How is Ad hominem different than non-sequitor?
a. Every Ad Hominum is also a Non-sequitor, but not all Non-sequitor are Ad Hominum.
b. Ad Hominum is an illogical step between an arguer's undesirable traits and an arguer's clame, while non-sequitor is, specifically, unrelated statements put together quickly as to go unnoticed.
c. There is a lot of overlap. The type of fallacy a statement may be is purely a madder of argument for a person wishing to refute it.
d. The difference is completely semantic.
5. If two researchers have different results for the same experiment it is an ad hominem fallacy to assume
the one from the less prestigious institute used sloppy methods?
a. False, It would be an unreliable source fallacy to assume both used correct methods.
b. False, ad hominum only applies to people not institutions.
c. True, assumptions based on factors, other than the research documentation, causes a self perpetuating cycle of scientific stagnation.
d. True, but only amongst researchers. If the statement was made by a person with no ability to judge the research, it would not be an ad hominum fallacy.
I'm going to rewrite large portions of this article some time soon because the authors who wrote them don't understand what ad hominem means. If there are any objections to this, please voice them here. There is a very common misconception going around, that ad hominem is simply an attack against the person you're arguing with, but that is not necessarily the case. Likewise, an 'attack' doesn't have to be name-calling or anything like that. It could simply be something like "you are wrong because you don't have a PhD in the subject."
There is a very important distinction that some, but not all parts of the article make between to types of attacks. Ad hominem attack: "Your argument is wrong because of [something about the person they are arguing with]."
Non-ad hominem attack: "You're such a(n) [disparaging remark]. You are wrong because of [insert reasoning unrelated to the person]."
See the distinction? If there's any confusion, I can clarify further.
Please note that there is an exception of sorts, if the person you're arguing with IS the subject of the argument, then you can attack the characteristics of the person which are relevant to the argument. Although I'm not sure if that's really an exception or just not considered ad hominem to begin with. It depends if you define ad hominem as "attacking the person as a basis for your argument" OR "attacking the person as a basis for your argument in place of attacking their argument." The latter definition has the exception built-in, since you'd be attacking the person in addition to (not in place of) their argument. -- Nathan J. Yoder 6 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)
When I correct the ad hominem article later, I'm zapping the 'inverted ad hominem' term. It is completely non-notable (86 hits in google) and was invented and inserted into the article by User:Layman. Heck, the article itself even attributes it to Layman, a random web user, as having said it.
It is true that I violated the neutrality principle in this case. It is also true that I have made my self-interest in this matter obvious. I have the deepest respect for the principle and for the Wikimedia project generally. Informal Logic is the only place I would be prepared to do so. My reasons and justifications for doing so are clearly expressed by the very content I have contributed. I believe this embedded self-reference makes the subject truly engaging and as such is aligned to the philosophic aims of Wikimedia. I maintain that the relationship between Ad Hominem and Appeal to Authority is significant and somewhat enlightening in regards to the nature of Informal Logical Fallacy. When I first committed this "crime" I expected an immediate reaction. I have been as surprised as anyone that my work here has stood for seven months. I had come to understand that this reflected the soundness of the logic involved. Is the logic flawed? Is there a way to appeal to higher authorities for an exemption to the rigid application of the neutrality principle in this particular case? If so; my contribution to the article stands as my case! -- Layman 7 July 2005 02:44 (UTC)
Further: It only seems not-notable because it has not yet been notably noted. I maintain that the work/logic wrote itself and only the way it did based on the pre-existing context. The strong relationship between the two fallacies in question is well noted by recognizably credentialed logicians. You yourself noted it in your complaint except ironically concluded that; the thin disguise of an 'ad hominem' as an 'appeal to authority' is not an inversion of 'ad hominem' because it is still an 'ad hominem' ("The meaning is the same..."). I note here that it is an inversion because the same thin disguise is found in the other direction i.e. an 'appeal to authority' is often obviously only thinly disguised as an 'ad hominem' too! Of course, what is obvious depends on the observer in question.
Both fallacies are only the same 'red-herring' (a diversionary tactic which takes us to an irrelevant sub-argument about the arguer and not the argument itself) but that doesn't stop us distinguishing each as a useful sub-category! -- Layman 8 July 2005 01:52 (UTC)
I've answered all of your questions, please point to a single one that I have ignored. You haven't cited a single Wikipedia policy here to back you up, so I'm wondering on what basis this should actually be kept in. I may be the first to say the meaning is not self-evident, but has anyone actually said that it is self-evident in the first place? You're the only one I've seen who says it is self-evident. It surviving for 7 months doesn't mean that it's valid, it just means that no one has known enough or cared enough to bothering changing it. And no, it wouldn't help if I also received credit for it, do you really think this is a matter of my ego? I'm removing it because it simply shouldn't be there. Did you read the avoid neologisms and no original research pages yet? I really don't think you understand what they mean. If you really, REALLY want to keep it, I suggest putting up an RFC, but if you don't after a week I'll just nuke all the 'inverted ad hominem nonsense.' -- Nathan J. Yoder 10:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid your argument is all over the shop. Now you seem to be attacking the IAH for undermining the credibility of Wikipedia by undermining that very credibility yourself. No, your right, the seven months don't necessarily mean it is valid, but nor do they necessarily mean that "no one has known enough or cared enough to bothering [sic] changing it". A conclusion you assert with extreme confidence. I'm afraid you confuse confidence with objectivity! Are you sure you want to go down this path? Wikipedia's very strength is also its very weakness. I tell you, this is unavoidable if Wikipedia is to be more than merely another authoritarian encyclopedia. I cite all the Wikipedia policies or "guidelines" to back me up, or more accurately, to back up the IAH! None of them ought to be taken in isolation. In particular, I cite; Point three in Wikipedia:Policy trifecta - "as a wiki: Ignore all rules - the suggested personal policy - Corollaries: Be bold, avoid instruction creep" and; Pillar Five of Wikipedia:Five pillars "Wikipedia doesn't have firm rules besides the four general principles elucidated above. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles, because the joy of editing is that perfection isn't required." "Ah-Ha", I now here you saying. Pillar five clearly states "...besides the four general principles elucidated above". In particular, I am guessing, you will want to emphasize the first two, namely: Pillar one; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. and Pillar two; Wikipedia uses the "neutral point-of-view". But, before we can argue effectively about the relevance (or 'irrelevance' as I would have it) of these two Pillars where it comes to matters of Informal Logic, I need you to understand what IL is! Do you firstly understand that IL is about “natural language”? Do you understand, for example; how the very capitalization of the term itself makes it effectively oxymoronic? Do you understand why even Logicians can't agree about a method for resolving differences of opinion in the Abstract-Sciences? Especially, where it comes to arguments about the methods for doing so! Do you understand why the very article in question states; "Regarding a logician's last argument it would seem that his/her status is only as relevant and valid as is her/his last argument"? Do you understand how a tool like Wikipedia might play a crucial role in overcoming these problems? Ed Poor sums the situation nicely on the Wikipedia:Appeal to authority article discussion page, where he says; "The appeal to authority is fallacious because Quine says so!" Personally, I would see that whole article consist only of this very paradox! Do you now understand why ‘authority’ generally only works if it is – quite paradoxically – subservient to it’s subordinates. Do you now understand why Logic is the issue here? Why logic itself is the only true authority, and why the question I most want answered of the ones you haven't yet - despite your firm assertion to the contrary - is; "Is the logic flawed?" Also, am I now to understand that you finally understand the official meaning of the word "inverted"? Do you now understand that; if your shirt is inverted it is simply, inside out, upside-down, back-to-front or some such, but certainly not a non-shirt? No, I didn't mean to suggest that your ego is the problem here. But that, maybe you felt mine was! I was saying; I will be happy to compromise on the apparent self-credit. Particularly, I'd be happy for the line about the IAH being a new term coined by yours-truly, to be changed. You have managed to convince me that IAH is in fact not a neologism. I have been asking myself why for example; you have been insisting that IAH represents the neologism “crime” to you, but you don’t seem to have the same problem with the word combination “Regular Ad Hominem”. Nor for that matter do you seem to have a problem with other obvious neologisms in the article i.e. “fallacy-monger”. I have only been able to guess that it is my self-reference which is really bothering you. The apparent focus of your otherwise scattered attacks would seem to bare this conclusion out. I assure you, I included the self-reference for the obvious reasons yes, but only justified, to myself, doing so because it seemed the honest thing to do, and because I believed that doing so would add positively to the message of the article. I must say in closing though, that your offer of a week's grace to allow for me to act on your suggestion of "putting up an RFC" seems reasonable. Even if I can't quite work out why this should be my responsibility, I am now planning on doing just that. -- Layman 05:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
But if, "[t]his has nothing to do with the credibility of anything", then I completely fail to see how anyone (barring mental handicap of course) whosoever could not completely fail to see how any rules (including Wikipedia's very own) are relevant to anything at all. As Dan Dennett points out in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea - "Either the net stays up, or it stays down." What he is explaining is how an argument can only descend to absurdity if your opponent refuses to play by the rules of logic. In fact, you have now crucially contradicted yourself and I claim total victory in this particular argument. I urge you to concede gracefully or go away quietly. I will await your successor with much anticipation. BTW, thank you for drawing our attention to yet another version of the fallacy of Changing The Subject – namely the Irrelevant Fallacy fallacy. Of course now, I too have committed this fallacy by pointing out your own effort. However if either of us had rested our case crucially on doing so or crucially claimed the other had, then we would have had the Irrelevant Fallacy Fallacy fallacy. Cheers! -- Layman 14:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Layman is right and so including “Inverted Ad Hominem” and it’s definition in the encyclopedia is completely justified. -- karl 22:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the support, karl, but I wouldn't want to claim quite as much just yet. -- Layman 07:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I want to see the fun in this little argument so I thought I just let you know my opinion. There are obviously various variations of “Ad Hominem“ arguments, and while you two are going through some actually applying them while you go along you might as well define them with various terms. Doing that shows there is a use for the particular term in question and that justifies the entry in this encyclopaedia. --Karl 07:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
A google search for "inverted ad hominem" -wikipedia -encyclopedia [to eliminate most wikipedia mirrors] yields only 40 results. Only 18 of those results are unique (Google omitted overlapping results that are very similar). There are 99 results without eliminating wikipedia mirrors, with only 27 if you exclude overlapping results.
As explained above, the term is coined by the guy who inserted it into the article, it's recognized practically nowhere and its meaning is not self-evident.
The user who inserted it into the article ( User:Layman) has also decided to start recruiting people from 'the brights' forum to come to this article to defend him to produce a skewed result. Neither Layman nor the people he's recruiting (including Karl above) seem to understand Wikipeda guidelines and policies. the-brights forum post recruiting people -- Nathan J. Yoder 17:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
This "inverted ad hominem" seems like an invented term. The description given sounds like an appeal to authority or an appeal to the people, or even a subtle ad hominem. All logical fallacies have some overlap, so this could even be considered to be a false cause fallacy, or a red herring. None of the standard sites I use for explaining logical fallacies mention "inverted ad hominem". The term appears to already be covered by a number of different, already existing fallacies. I see no legitimate reason to give such a marginal term equal credit with a standard definition as "ad hominem". If removing the term complete causes a revert war due to editor insistence of this term being mentioned, then, at the very most, put one sentence at the bottom of the article mentioning "inverted ad hominem" and give a URL to a site that defines it. Don't define it. Just mention it is a marginal term and give a URL. That's my opinion. -- FuelWagon 20:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I can't believe this is still being discussed. Inserting inverted ad hominem is a CLEAR breach of policy. Here is the relevant equation:
Now, I am not saying this is the only policy it breaches, clearly the topic is non-notable and therefore not encyclopedic. I am just saying that it is the most obvious one. I am 100% behind Njyoder in this. Layman's argument that just because nobody is discussing with him except Njyoder therefore he is right is ridiculous (you could say it is an Inverted Argumentum ad populum. Hey, look at that, now I have invented a fallacy). -- gkhan 10:17, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
This is original research. It appears to be a new word for argumentum ad verecundiam, or something close. -- Christopher Parham (talk) 01:04, 2005 July 30 (UTC)
You're clearly correct on the points you've made. And you've been promising to fix it for three weeks now. I just went ahead and edited it, more along the lines of a clearer, simpler, and more correct earlier version. Feel free to rewrite or improve as you see fit. We really could use some references and external links here, too. -- Acerimusdux 07:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
for years i've been bemoaning the never-ending permutations (or even just examples) of classic fallacies which some logic sites attempt to quantify with needless, official-sounding terms. similarly, i loathe the attempts by User:Layman to noodge his invented and, IMO, distorting, cutesy, and unnecessary term into the article. but fortunately for this discussion, my opinion of the term is irrelevant, as User:Njyoder correctly concluded; it's an obvious violation of wikipedia standards. argument for or against the term's value should take place somewhere other than article talk pages. thanks to nathan for taking the time to fight this battle he never should have had to.
BTW, i propose that what Aristotle called ad hominem henceforth be known as reverse polarity inverted ad hominem, and that this article be moved to that more modern title. -- SaltyPig 10:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Clearly this term is novel and supported by only original research. There should be no debate—it does not belong in the article. User:Layman, use your considerable logical faculties to see how this inevitably follows from the premises laid out in WP:NOR. — Saxifrage | ☎ 22:18, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Layman's term is correct and instead of ganging up on him and making fun of him you guys should at least acknowledge it's something that's not covered in the article as it is now. I came here looking almost explicitly for the concept he defined as Inverted Ad Hominem and was disappointed not to see it until I saw this discussion, which was pretty horrifying to read. Inverted Ad Hominem is not solely confined to "appeal to authority":
Being a Democrat does not mean one has more "authority" in politics, hence it is not an "appeal to authority". Rather, "appeal to authority" is a special case of Layman's Inverted Ad Hominem. The example above operates as the same device that Layman's neologism describes. In addition, the term "ad hominem defense" turns up 322 times on Google, including an arbitration dispute on wikipedia.
I haven't seen this particular form of Ad Hom included, but then I don't even know if it is worthy of inclusion. I read about it reading Ayn Rand. It consists of insulting a third party.
X people support idea Y. You're much smarter than X people, surely you don't support idea Y.
She called it Argument from Intimidation, that you would be intimidated away from idea Y because you don't want to be associated with people X. -- Harvestdancer 22:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I added this synonym, although I am aware of some confusion and cross-usage of two similar phrases with different meanings:
-- StuRat 14:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Is there such a thing as "pre-emptive ad hominem"? I'm not sure what it is (or should be) called. But you see it all the time. For example: "Only an idiot would think that marijuana is dangerous." This statement attacks any potential opponents before they even speak up. Anyone who disagrees is then afraid to speak their mind because to do so would be to automatically get labelled as an idiot. - Is there a name for that kind of statement? I'm pretty sure "pre-emptive ad hominem" isn't it. -- 163.192.21.41 18:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
"Pre-emptive ad hominem"? I like it! Layman 00:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
can we add some examples?
Layman's argumnts make my head hurt; Nathan's do not. Therefor Nathan is right. Ooh, I'll go write a wiki article about it! Kuroune 06:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Just because it can legitimately be used to cast a shadow of a doubt on testimony doesn't mean that the usage is not logically fallacious. It doesn't PROVE the testimony wrong, which is what logic needs to do. - Raijinili 01:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
My Latin is nearly non-existent, wht is the plural for ad hominem? From the text on the page, and reason, an attack can be mae agianst more than one person, or a class of people, rather than an individual. In another page the assertion was made that the argument could not be ad hominem because it applied to a whole profession, which I take to be incorrect, except as to grammar. Midgley 00:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The opening paragraphs discuss "Ad feminam" more than they discuss "Ad hominem". I would suggest moving the paragraph beginning "The derived neologism ad feminam..." somewhere else in the article (possibly the subtypes section?). It seems confusing that so much space is given over to a topic that is not the subject of the article so early on. Or, if any one thinks the term warrants it, they could make an article for it, and just add a link.
Thoughts anyone? MartinRobinson 21:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia states: “An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man") or attacking the messenger, is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.” Is this statement entirely accurate? Is an ad hominem argument always a logical fallacy? In that light I pose this linked pondering [1] for your consideration. Wpraeder 12:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The article does seem to differentiate an ad hominem argument from an ad hominem fallacy. I believe the issue is appropriately covered in the article but the opening statement says an ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy. It also appears later to say it is not fallacious when applied to evidence (or premise). The only concern is - is an ad hominem argument a logical fallacy by definition or must we insert the concept of relevance? It is a minor concern only for greater accuracy and consistency of definition that some authors of critical thinking texts (such as Bruce Waller) have tried to clarify through terminology. Wpraeder 16:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree the opening statement could be stated in a more easily understood fashion. I'm fine with your suggested approach. A more detailed review of the topic of ad hominem terminology can be found at the following link [2]. Wpraeder 00:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the useful qualification. I think it is an improvement. We still have an interesting challenge for the Wikipedia community where we essentially say that the ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy that does not always involve fallacious reasoning. There is no hurry, but I would encourage discussion on further clarification of the surrounding terminology. Note an excellent lay description of the ad hominem argument can be found with Waller, Bruce N. Critical Thinking, Fifth Edition. New Jersey: Person Education, Inc., 2005. Chapter 10: 180-209. A useful discussion of the various treatments of this topic can be found with Walton, Douglas. Ad Hominem Arguments, Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 1998. Chapter 2: 44-103. Wpraeder 09:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Other definitions include: “ad hominem [L. 'to the person'] is shortened from the LATINISM argumentum ad hominem (= an argument directed not at the merits of an opponent’s argument but to the personality or character of the opponent).” [ Brian A. Garner, The Garner’s Modern American Usage Second Edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003) 17. ]
“In argumentation we respond to the argument, not to the person behind the argument. That rule is broken when the argument is ignored and the person responsible for the argument is deliberately attacked. When that happens the ‘ad hominem fallacy’ is being committed.” [ D.Q. McInerny, Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking (New York: Random House, 2004) 115. ] Wpraeder 21:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit perplexed by:
I get it, except for the "My opponent is resorting to logical fallacy to win" bit being an example of ad hominem. Is it the "to win" part that makes it so? Surely pointing out that your opponent is using fallacious reasoning is not always ad hominem? Would that not result in all logical arguments being ad hominem, since they are but steps away from implying that the other person is using fallacious reasoning? -- TreyHarris 23:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
That paragraph should be edited out since it's incorrect. Ad hominem is an invalid type of argument, therefore a phrase can only be used as an example of it in case it has premises and a conclusion, which is required to form an argument. The examples above ("I'm not going to stand here and let him insult me!" and “My opponent is resorting to logical fallacy to win.") are just statements, and therefore can't be used as examples of ad hominem. Notice that saying: "My opponent is using an ad hominem (premise), THEREFORE (indicates a transition from premises to conclusion --> an argument) he is WRONG (conclusion)." is indeed a logical fallacy, since it's an appeal to logic (argumentum ad logicam). The conclusion is not necessarily incorrect because it has been achieved with an absurd argument; it is possible that the correct conclusion has been found by accident. When a conclusion is found using incorrect arguing, it is impossible to say whether it is true or false, it is only possible to state that the conclusion cannot be achieved in that way.
It is unclear which particular form this statement refers to. Previous versions of this sentence simply states "The argumentum ad hominem is a...". The sentence could also use a citation. Shawnc 03:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
As it is, the article here is a heaven for hack logicians, the sort who don't understand what role emotion plays in arguments between human beings. We need to stress that ad hominem attacks aren't the Devil, but a pitfall in rational arguments. By rational arguments, I mean significant and sensible rational arguments, not schoolyard debates like the sort I'm used to leading, where the parties opposite me neither have any empathy for anything but themselves nor wish to produce any. (That has happened...) -- VKokielov 14:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The two sentances attributed to the American Heritage Dictionary provided clarity. It was deleted with a comment "appeal to authority," which is sort of funny that someone would so mischaracterize a logical argument in an article largly about logic. However, apart from the silly comment, some editors may feel uncomfortable with the heavy referencing from another source. I haven't reverted it to allow others to weigh in and make their choice. The sentances were: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language reported [3] that 65 percent of its usage panel found the following sentence to be acceptable: "It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way." They further report that the phrase ad hominem has also "acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks," and is "gaining ground in journalistic style" as in the following quote from The Washington Post: "Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together." 71.129.147.6 16:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Before anything else, please notice that we are trying to cooperate to write an article together. As for the paragraph in question, it failed to explain the reasons why "The American Heritage Dictionary Of The English Language" supports its position. The citation merely consists in repeating several times a conclusion: that the expression "ad hominem" (notice: not "argumentum ad hominem", the logical concept) is often used as a synonym of "personal attack". This may certainly be true, but not because "The American Heritage Dictionary Of The English Language" says so; perhaps if one would specify why it says so, it would be possible to find a good reason for this. The only attempt to do so is to state that 65% of its board agrees with this conclusion, but again the reason why they agree with it is not commented, neither are we presented to the reason why 35% of it does not agree with the same conclusion. This is solely based on the number of people who support the position, a clear case of the ad numerum fallacy. Returning to the paragraph, to cite a source merely on grounds of its credibility rather than the reasons it presents to support its conclusion is a clear case of appeal to authority. It is legitimate to discuss whether this interpretation is correct or not, but doing so only by stating that the editor who noted this is "funny", does not comprehend logic ("mischaracterizition", while not explaining why it is so) and is "silly" is a clear example of the argument against the person (please refer to ad hominem) and does not prove it is not an appeal to authority. Also, the major part of the section in question consisted in citing sources; the only thing to learn from it was that the expression "ad hominem" may mean "personal attack" in common language. In this case, it would seem better to open a "bibliography" section to cite sources rather than writing a section that mostly consists only in citations. 200.158.164.251 21:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
In his first comment in this discussion, my fellow editor - or should I say my enemy, as he seems to prefer - made several (unprovoked) personal remarks, attempting to discredit me enough to push his views on the subject at hand. He received a reply where I refrained from any kind of personal comments, hoping that this would steer the discussion back into civilized terms. My opponent, however, was not satisfied by this, and decided to insult me once again ("I think you just passed silly"). Then he leashes out and accuses me of committing some random fallacy, a claim to which he offers no justification whatsoever. He states that ad numerum is not a fallacy in some cases, and dictates that "language is all about numerosity", but as usual we don't have the pleasure of learning why we should believe that truth comes from number rather than from reason. He comes up with yet another appeal to authority (with the linguists comment). As usual, he has attempted to discuss the other editor instead of offering reasons to support the inclusion of his two sentances(sic) to this article. 200.158.164.251 15:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
It's clear that argumentum ad hominem and personal attacks are two different things. Not all arguments against the person consist in personal attacks; they can use several other strategies as well, as covered in the article. In the other hand, not all personal attacks are part of arguments, since they are often just statements. Therefore, merging both articles seems incorrect. They have an area in common, however, so I do believe the articles should link to each other. I'm removing the merge proposal. 200.148.79.236 01:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
"Ad hominem" in New Latin means "to the person," not "at the person." There should be no argument there. The meaning of "ad hominem argument" that is discussed here is a new one. I think it probably came about on the internet. The article here should include the original (and arguably "correct") definition. I added such text, including two authoritative sources. Someone removed it entirely, citing poor grammar, and saying also that it added nothing new. If the grammar was bad, it would have been helpful to correct it. The claim that it added nothing new is plain wrong. Nothing in the current text indicates that there is an older definition that is still used by educated people. The current text also mistranslates the Latin for "to the person" as "at the person," which is an easily corrected mistake.
I cut it down to its essentials, and I have attempted to use good grammar.
Thanks. I was typing the following paragraph as you typed yours.
I first learned about argumentum ad hominem in high school, some 40 years ago. I was taught that the phrase meant literally "argument to the person," and it was an argument crafted to appeal to the emotions or prejudices of the person to be persuaded. I knew of no other meaning until the phrase became a common one in internet flame wars in the nineties. Those writers used the phrase to mean an argument that merely seeks to discredit or impugn a person who holds a differing viewpoint. Today I find both definitions in authoritative dictionaries, along with notes that the newer meaning is displacing the older one. In no case have I found an authoritative source that translates the Latin preposition "ad" to mean "at" rather than "to."
I suspect that some of the Latin tags for various logical fallacies described here are also neologisms. The Latin gives a patina of antiquity and implies scholarly respectability. Where are the references? All of those Latin names have been in a list that has been floating around the internet for several years. Is that the original source? Who invented these categories, and when? When I google looking for citations, I come up empty. There are no citations in the Wiki article other than a smattering of web pages - no books.
I do not have the time nor inclination to research it all. I twice added text to the beginning of the article noting only that there is an older meaning. I gave two references. I also corrected the translation from "at" to "to." Twice my changes have been removed, the second time with no reason given.
I may suggest that in the past when I have had questions about such things, the etymology editor of Merriam Webster has been very friendly an helpful.
Can we at least agree on some kind of change that corrects the Latin mistranslation and mentions the original meaning?
Jive Dadson 13:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
P.s. An online etymology page says "ad hominem" meaning "to a man" dates from 1599. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ad+hominem
Here is an excerpt from Deductive Logic by St. George Stock, ca. 1888, courtesy Project Gutenburg.
However, he follows shortly with this:
Jive Dadson 20:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
EXAMPLE OF AD HOMINEM: In a debate between Dave Hunt and James White; Dave Hunt argued against the doctrine of Calvanism by attacking the character of John Calvin. This is a solid example of Ad Hominem. 66.161.35.200 17:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Steve Wilson; www.asteelframe.blogspot.com
Quote from a recent addition to the article:
This is obviously correct. I just wonder, is it still an ad hominem argument, but not an ad hominem fallacy? If so, the article lead stating that ad hominem arguments are logical fallacies should be moderated.-- Niels Ø 08:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Niels. In the taxonomy section it is stated ad hominem fallacies should not be mistakenly confused with attacks on credibility of persons asserting a fact that he/she claims to have witnessed. This still leads to the consideration is this an ad hominem argument, but not an ad hominem fallacy. See Bruce N. Waller, Critical Thinking: Consider the Verdict Fifth Edition (New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005) 181.
Note the listed external link at philosophy.lander.edu has non-fallacious examples of the ad hominem. Yet the text appears to assert in the introduction an ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Douglas N. Walton has written [4] extensively about the ad hominem argument and professes a different view of such assertions.
Perhaps some consistent documentation is necessary to support the introduction or it can use the common caveat “normally fallacious.” I would submit that research on the subject has advanced over time and alternate [5] views exist. Wpraeder 03:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
“The results and quandaries that I have presented in this paper indicate that it would be worth to revising the fallacious character of the ad hominem way of argue from a dialectical conception of argument.” [Chichi, Graciela Marta. “The Greek Roots of the Ad Hominem-Argument.” Argumentation 16 (2002): 342.] Since post approximately 1995 (See [6]) the idea that an ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy is likely to be challenged, it needs a reliable contemporary set of sources. “The typical glib dismissal of the argumentum ad hominem as fallacious threatens our understanding of the important nuances of actual arguments, particularly in matters of practical reasoning where there are no incontrovertible ‘facts’ available to the disputants." [Metcalf, R. “Rethinking the Ad Hominem: A Case Study of Chomsky.” Argumentation 19 (2005): 47.] “Far from being a fallacious mode of argument, asking who supports a particular argument forms a valuable and crucial rational life skill. Unfortunately, the ad hominem argument has come to represent an idealised caricature of how this argument form can be abused or used wrongly. Due to the need for simplification, logic texts have erroneously characterised this mode of argument as always (or very nearly always) a serious rational misperformance.” [de Wijze, Stephen. Complexity, “Relevance and Character: Problems with teaching the ad hominem fallacy.” Educational Philosophy and Theory 35 (1), (2003): 31.] Note the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material [7]. Wpraeder 14:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
It looks like there is a concensus not to merge. I'm dropping the tags. ike9898 17:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed the bubble diagrams as they explained the fallacy incorrectly. The personal part of the argument does not invalidate every part what the asserter claims just the specific claim. They should be written as:
With the first two obviously being the premisses and the third being the illogical conclusion. If a person were to state that alcoholism is a disease and another person were to claim that he was using that as an excuse as he is a chronic alcoholic that would be a perfect example of an ad hominem argument. The person would be saying his particular statements about alcoholism were false not his statements about every subject. Quadzilla99 00:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Nazis and eugenics? Why use such a touchy subject? Bringing up Naziism randomly could certainly make people unnecessarily uncomfortable. Also, it seems to have disguised POV... especially when there's a big check mark over "The Nazis were bad people." That's clearly an opinion, and I'm sure there are a few people would object to that (not only neo-nazis, but also people who are descended from that generation of Germans.)
I'm sure someone could think of a less touchy and less POV example! Jolb 05:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I moved a paragraph from the lede to the main body of the article. [8] I find the text a little awkward and the use of a 1926 tertiary source intensifies my doubt whether this sentence stands true. Also, the text on Pyrrhonians also looks like it is a fringe hypothesis. Also, even though the quoted verbatim is attributed to philosopher R. Scott Bakker, the author of the text is Roger Eichorn. ("About me: My name is Roger Eichorn. I’m a friend of Scott’s, an aspiring fantasy novelist, and a Ph.D. student in philosophy at the University of Chicago.") Cinadon 36 09:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The Pyrrhonist usage isn't fringe; it's the original meaning of "ad hominem" and much of the surviving ancient Pyrrhonist arguments have this structure. Good catch on the misattribution; however, Roger Eichorn is at least a somewhat well-known scholar of Pyrrhonism. Teishin ( talk) 13:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Here, not surprisingly, it arises in the context of dialogues. In the Sophistical Refutations (177b33), Aristotle writes with reference to an example, “this solution will not suit every argument . . . but is directed against the questioner, not against the argument.”). Maybe it is not fringe, maybe it is a triviality, but I cant make up my mind yet, I 'll have to do some more research. Any feedback is welcomed of course. Cinadon 36 14:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay. I did a rewrite, too. Teishin ( talk) 19:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Per current version of the article, there are 3 types of fallacious Ad Hominem: Tu quoque, Circumstantial and Guilt by association. Tindale p.92 also lists "abusive ad hominem", we may need to add it as well. Cinadon 36 22:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I have added the abusive ad hominem fallacy, but, now I see that SEP's article on fallacies [10] only lists three types of fallacies: abusive ad hominem, circumstantial ad hominem and tu quoque. Cinadon 36 23:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
The non-fallicious types need to be put back into the article, most particularly the argument from conviction. Teishin ( talk) 00:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I will re-insert them. did it already. But there was no "argument from conviction" at the article. Are you referring to "Argument from commitment"? Cinadon 36 07:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I feel that the current structure of the article does not properly reflect the literature. The current structure suggests that there are fallacious and non-fallacious types of ad hominem argument. But it is my understanding, that there is a number of types of ad hominem argument, every each of them has a fallacious and a nonfallacious use. For example subsection "Attack on authority", it is more reasonable to be discussed under the the section "circumstantial ad hominem". As with Cicr. ad hominem which has fallacious and nonfallacious usage, attack on authority can also be a valid or invalid argument. This reasoning applies to "Argument from commitment", in a lesser extent though. I have never encountered a textbook that is listing ad hominem arguments that has a seperate chapter or section on this specific argument. May I propose, that we merge 3rd and 4th section (keeping the title of the first, and separate it into 5 subsection (keeping Argument from commitment and moving attack on authority in circumstantial type of ad hominem)? Your feedback please! Cinadon 36 08:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
As with many wiki articles they tend to get things hung onto them and moved around until the structure starts creaking. Just because you've not seen a textbook talk about the argument from commitment doesn't mean it doesn't exist. One can find plenty of discussions of it. I've not seen any of them describe it as a logical fallacy. With regard to structure, the thing that seems to me to be our biggest challenge is to address both the common usage of "ad hominem" and the specialist usage. I'd suggest making that distinction the foundation of the new structure. Teishin ( talk) 16:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I feel we are duplicating information here. Walton and Taylor are not criticizing the Ad hominem argument or fallacy, they are explaining that ad hominem argument is not always fallacious. This has to be address elsewhere in the article. Cinadon 36 11:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I have noticed that User:Cinadon36 has undone my edits. As such, I will explain in greater detail why I made them.
Now, the defence of this material is that it's sourced. However, much of this material is grammatically faulty, poorly worded, or facially contradictory to the main text of the article and common knowledge about the definitions of these terms. This leaves a couple of possibilities:
If I were able to access the sources, I'd be able to check which of these is the case. But the two sources for these particular parts are not available to me, so I can't. What I do know is that what's in there isn't accurate and Wikipedia shouldn't present inaccuracies as truth (though sufficiently-notable inaccuracies can be noted as inaccuracies; indeed, this whole page is an example of such).
(As an aside, while I didn't remove it, the "not on Walton's watch" thing is also unencyclopaedic and should go.)
Magic9mushroom ( talk) 03:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this to Talk. I will answer later. As for sources, I will email you. Cinadon 36 07:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I feel it would be better if we discuss the various issues raised above in separate sections. So, lets start with tu quoque. Here 's what Wrisley p88 says:
An ad hominem: tu quoque argument is often seen in political debate. When one party impugns the character of another, it is often countered with a response, “you, too!” Presumably the goal of such a response is to distract from or deflate the power of the first party’s allegations. However, the tu quoque ad hominem argument is not merely the claim that the other party is just as guilty as oneself. As Douglas Walton (1998) emphasizes: “The main problem with the textbook treatment of the tu quoque ad hominem fallacy is that according to the way it is most often defined, it becomes essentially the same type of argument as that in the two wrongs make a right fallacy
So, as I get it, Walton and Wrisley share the same opinion and the phrase Tu quoque does not require a previous ad hominem to be used
does not stand correct.
Note that drawing attention to proponent's history, is not per se a tu quoque argument. Wrisley p78 writes
The basic form of the fallacy[ad hominem circumstantial] looks like this:
Proponent: Gives argument/position x.
Respondent: Questions or attempts to refute argument/position x, not by attacking x, but by drawing attention to circumstance y, where y demonstrates one of the proponent’s commitments which is in some way inconsistent with argument/position x.
Respondent: Claims the proponent’s credibility in regard to argument/position x is called into question.
Respondent: Concludes that the proponent’s argument/position x is less credible/refuted.
Note that Wrisley goes on and gives the example of the father who advises his daughter not to smoke, and she answer backs "but dad, you smoke"
I am awaiting your comments and feedback. Anyone who would like to have a look at Wrisley book, pls let me know. Cinadon 36 15:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
On the other hand, Tindale is closer to your opinion. This is how he opens his subchapter on tu quoque fallacies, p94 (for full citation see article's bibliography)
Tu Quoque Arguments Tu quoque translates as “you too,” and effectively suggests that there is an inconsistency between what a person does and what he says, or what he has said in the past and what he is proposing now. That is, the person is guilty of the very charge he is now making. The inconsistency here is pragmatic rather than logical. Typical examples would be dismissing the argument of a physician that you should diet because the physician is clearly overweight. Strictly speaking, the physician’s own circumstances have no bearing on your own health.
I will have a look at other books as well. Cinadon 36 16:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Here is a tertiary source: The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, second edition editor Robert Audi, publisher: Cambridge University Press, article "Informal logic" pp= 431-435 by Douglas Walton (D.W.), University of Winnipeg
Yet another variant of the ad hominem argument often cited in logic textbooks is the tu quoque (you-too reply), where the arguer attacked by an ad hominem argument turns around and says, “What about you? Haven’t you ever lied before? You’re just as bad.” Still another variant is the bias type of ad hominem argument, where one party in an argument charges the other with not being honest or impartial or with having hidden motivations or personal interests at stake
More to follow. Cinadon 36 17:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Another source claiming that Tu Quoque is a respond to an attack. Author(s): William Hughes, Jonathan Lavery Publisher: Broadview Press, Year: 2008
The tu quoque fallacy is a special case of the ad hominem. Like the ad hominem, it typically arises in an argumentative context when someone attempts to refute or rebut something said by another person. The tu quoque fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an argument claims that an accusation is unwarranted and supports it by claiming that the accuser is also open to a similar accusation. This fallacy is sometimes called the Two Wrongs fallacy, but we shall use the traditional Latin name (pronounced tew-kwoh-kway), which means you too. It is clear that a tu quoque response to an accusation can never refute the accusation. Consider the following:
Wilma: You cheated on your income tax. Don’t you realize that’s wrong?
Walter: Hey, wait a minute. You cheated on your income tax last year. Or have you forgotten about that?
Walter may be correct in his counter-accusation, but that does not show that Wilma’s accusation is false. Wilma’s guilt can in no way reduce or eliminate Walter’s guilt.
See also fourth edition [11] of the same book. Text is the same. Cinadon 36 17:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: ComplexRational ( talk · contribs) 18:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I'll take a look at this article, I'm currently doing a pre-check. ComplexRational ( talk) 18:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow start, this is just a tough time IRL. Anyway, here goes:
Overall, the prose appears to be in pretty good shape, and a quick check of the sources does not raise any questions. I had to do a little copyediting, (I may continue still) and a few sources and statements need checking, but nothing that can't be handled over the course of this review.
There are no copyright concerns in the text, and the one image is properly licensed PD. This satisfies criteria 2d and 6b. The article is quite stable, the only significant changes have been polishing the article for GAN. So criterion 5 is satisfied.
References
Aristotle, in his work Sophistical Refutations, detailed the fallaciousness of putting the questioner but not the argument under scrutiny.– I can't directly check ref 1, but ref 2 (Walton) explicitly states that ad hominem was not in Aristotle's work. Could you please clarify this, maybe elaborate on what Aristotle did describe (in the source,
Aristotle distinguished between solutions directed against the man, and solutions directed against the argument.), as this would be clearer and provide useful historical context.
Not on Walton's watch.– not entirely sure what this means
An example of this fallacy could be "My opponent for office just received an endorsement from the Puppy Haters Association. Is that the sort of person you would want to vote for?"– direct quote or example, citation needed
appears after horrible events– we can agree they were horrible, but could this be worded more neutrally? ComplexRational ( talk) 14:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
For example, if one supplies sufficient reasons to reject an interlocutor's argument and adds a slight character attack at the end, this character attack is not necessarily fallacious.– this is quite vague. Does the source elaborate at all on "sufficient reasons"?
Lastly, it should be examined...– I'd suggest a slight rewrite because "lastly" doesn't feel appropriate here.
This type of argument is also known as "argument from commitment."– citation needed
It is so powerful of an argument it has been employed in many political debates.– citation specifically needed for this, and needs a little rewording: "powerful" seems quite non-neutral unless there are sources clearly agreeing on this, and "many" is better quantified or explained concretely per MOS:WEASEL.
"In any of the kinds of conversational frameworks in which people reason with each other, despite the opposition and partisanship characteristic of many kinds of dialogue, there must also be a presumption that in order to achieve collaborative goals, participants must observe rules of polite conversation. Arguers must be able to trust each other, to some extent at least, to be informative and relevant, to take turns politely, and to express their commitments clearly and honestly. Without this kind of collaboration in contributing to a dialogue, argument, of a kind that uses reasoning to fulfill its goals of dialogue interaction, would not be possible. For these reasons, attacking the other party’s honesty or sincerity in argument is a powerful move. Such an argument leads one to the conclusion that such a person lacks credibility as an arguer who can be trusted to play by the rules. This argument is so powerful because it suggests that such a person cannot ever be trusted and that therefore whichever argument they use, it may simply be discounted as worthless. Thus the person attacked cannot meaningfully take part in the dialogue any longer, no matter how many good arguments they seem to have. Because they are so powerful and dangerous, ad hominem arguments have often been treated in the past as fallacious. Their use in negative campaign tactics in political argumentation is notorious. But they can sometimes be reasonable arguments. For example, in legal argumentation in a trial, it can be legitimate for a crossexamining attorney to question the ethical character of a witness. The lawyer may even argue that the witness has lied in the past and use this argument to raise questions about his character for honesty. But before we can evaluate such ad hominem arguments, it is necessary to know what form they take."Cinadon 36 13:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
not an easy task– same neutrality and attribution concern: according to whom, and why not?
statistical percentage– this is minor, but I think it could be reworded to not suggest that there is a numerical value, especially since the source does not use this term.
More to come later. ComplexRational ( talk) 17:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Cinadon36: I think we're set now, this addresses all my neutrality concerns (4) and it seems in good shape as far as balancing detail with comprehensiveness (nothing is egregiously missing as far as I can tell) (3), sourcing (2), layout, and diction (1). I find nothing else major that would hold this up from meeting the GA criteria, so I'm passing it. Thank you for your work, and congratulations! ComplexRational ( talk) 19:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi ComplexRational happy to work with you to improve this article. These days I am a little busy and might not be able to reply promptly. Cinadon 36 14:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I've been trying unsuccessfully to make the first sentence a definition and simplify the lead. It currently says Ad hominem...is a term that is applied to several different types of arguments, most of which are fallacious, -which isn't helpful. Volunteer1234 ( talk) 13:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Why isn't that "helpful"? Why do you think the first sentence needs to be a definition? Teishin ( talk) 00:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Both of you
Teishin and
Volunteer1234 have good points. Volunteer1234, I agree with you that a definitional first sentence is preferable. But Teishin raises a valid point since your suggested edit alters how ad hominem is presented in the article. Nevertheless, I can sense that a middle ground can be found. Here is my suggested course of action: A)Check how RS are treating Ad hominem. I would start from SEP and IEP and then move to bibliography cited in the article. B)Make appropriate changes at the body of the article. C)Wait to see if these changes are accepted, if not discuss them at talk page D)Change the lede if necessary. I would have done this myself but I have some other priorities right now. It is on my to-do list, and I will check this sometime, if nobody else will. I am pretty sure consent can be reached on this issue.
Cinadon
36 06:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Copying the following from my talk page, as the discussion should go here. -- Hi. I don’t see a reference to the translation of “ad” as “to” in the section on arguments from commitment, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to. If there’s a need to provide a further English definition for ad, it should be somewhere that’s not where the phrase “ad hominem” is described. I’m going to revert your reversion, unless I’ve missed or misunderstood something. - Eponymous-Archon ( talk) 21:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Eponymous-Archon ( talk) 21:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Eponymous-Archon this discussion should be on Talk:Ad_hominem rather than here. You removed sourced content regarding the definition of "ad". While it's true that there is not further discussion about this in the argument from commitment, that is the usage, one which seemed well enough explained in the sourced content you deleted. In the argument from commitment the argument is "to" or "towards" the person with the commitment. Teishin ( talk) 00:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, may we have the previous discussion on this topic because I do not understand what s the problem... Cinadon 36 03:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Cinadon 36 05:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
I somewhat confused as to why my additions to this page were removed, for not being supported by a ‘RS’ - which I assume is a ‘reliable source’.
If I am not mistaken as to the meaning of ‘RS’, my contribution named ‘Improper usage’ was derived from a University of Oxford philosophy student’s video on the topic, who I think is more than qualified to comment on what does/does not constitute an Ad Hominem.
Furthermore, my contribution named ‘Poisoning the Well’ was removed, despite me citing ‘Logically Fallacious’ - a web-based version of an academic resource by the same name.
If I have misunderstood the reasons for deletion, please ignore this message. Raidiohead55 ( talk) 18:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Raidiohead55. Thanks for your message. Yes, RS stands for reliable source. Lets take it one by one. First, the video [21]. Who is talking? What are his credentials? Being a student surely isnt enough. Also, that video is a self published source, which is also problematic. I will adrress the other removal in a separate post. Thanks again for using Talk Page. Cinadon 36 19:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Logically fallacious website doesnt seem RS either. It looks as a tetriary source. When visiting the site, I noticed that I couldnt locate the name of the author. Then I tried to do a little search about the site, and when clicking on FAQ and another link, a warning message appeared that I was being transferred to an unsafe website. We need to stand on RS, that is peer reviewed articles, books or leading experts. It seems that this site is far from it. Cinadon 36 19:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
In regards to the video, he is a philosophy student at arguably the best university for philosophy in the world. Given this, I find it slightly bizarre to suggest that he is unqualified to comment on an issue as basic as what constitutes an Ad Homimem - especially when he references a professor in the video. Furthermore, he has debated with respected figures such as, Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig.
In regards to the logically fallacious removal, you can see the author’s credentials within two clicks from the main page (he holds a PhD). Scrolling down, you will also notice that there has also been an academic release (a book - as you requested) of the contents of the website.
Raidiohead55 ( talk)
I appreciate that, however that still doesn’t explain why the ‘Logically Fallacious’ source is not a RS.
Raidiohead55 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Better to put in a citation needed tag, rather than just deleting large sections of the article. JQ ( talk) 05:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Better to put in a citation needed tag, rather than just deleting large sections of the article. JQ ( talk) 05:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
While getting rid of the problematic sources, I've tried to retain the key elements of the recently added content. In particular I think that since the article Poisoning the well exists calling it an ad hominem that needs to be mirrored here. Teishin ( talk) 18:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
This section unfortunately contains an error.
The "Non-fallacious" example in fact illustrates a fallacious ad hominem. The fallacious at hominem is B's statement "also you are a moron" in reply to A's argument-- just as the "Fallacious" section illustrates.
B's statement "also you are a moron" does not become a "tacked on" illustration of the "Pure abuse" section's example merely because it occurs subsequent to a genuine refutation of A's argument. B's subsequent insult is a reply to A's argument just as much as B's prior genuine refutation is a reply. A prior genuine refutation does not close the floor to a subsequent disingenuous refutation.
Contrary to popular belief, merely insulting someone is not a fallacious ad hominem. A character attack is only considered a fallacious ad hominem if it is used in exchange for a genuine argument. [1]
Examples:
Makaveli129 (
talk) 17:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
References