Ad hominem, Ad Schmominem
I have trouble with so-called “logical fallacies.” A lot of them don’t make sense to me. I think they disallow what seem to me to be perfectly reasonable arguments. They are also often, usually? misused by people who don’t understand them. They whip them out like yellow cards as if they are the referee. As if it makes them seem like they know what they are talking about. If I had my way, they would be disallowed – you should be able to put your objections to an argument in clear language without a label to give them false credibility.
Of all the logical fallacies I hate, I hate the so-called “ad hominem” fallacy the most. It is misused and misunderstood here on the forum every day. Here’s what Wikipedia says.
[i]Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".
Valid ad hominem arguments occur in informal logic, where the person making the argument relies on arguments from authority such as testimony, expertise, or on a selective presentation of information supporting the position they are advocating. In this case, counter-arguments may be made that the target is dishonest, lacks the claimed expertise, or has a conflict of interest. Another type of valid ad hominem argument generally only encountered in specialized philosophical usage refers to the dialectical strategy of using the target's own beliefs and arguments against them, while not agreeing with the validity of those beliefs and arguments.[/i]
First off – the term “ad hominem” refers to an argument. An insult is an insult, not an ad hominem attack. This is the most common misuse of the concept. “@Bitter Crank, you’re a midwestern hayseed,” is an insult, no matter how true it may be. It is not an ad hominem argument. That doesn’t mean that insults are appropriate in a philosophical discussion. I guess if I were to say “Bitter Crank, your argument is bullshit because you’re a midwestern hayseed who doesn’t understand anything,” that would be an ad hominem argument.
The second paragraph of the Wikipedia discussion deals with a question I’ve thought about a lot. It seems like calling someone’s credibility and qualifications into question is appropriate in some situations. Does that mean only when discussing matters of fact? I think it’s ok to say something like “You are not a trained or educated physicist and I don’t think you are qualified to say that Einstein is wrong about everything based on an article you read in ‘Discover’.” It probably isn’t ok to say “You are not a trained philosopher and, for that reason, your opinion on the influence of Plato on Kant is not credible.”
I could use some help clarifying when it is appropriate to call an argument “ad hominem” and when it is not. I have misused this phrase myself. On the other hand, as I noted, we can avoid the whole problem by saying something like “Your comment does not address the argument I made.”
Of all the logical fallacies I hate, I hate the so-called “ad hominem” fallacy the most. It is misused and misunderstood here on the forum every day. Here’s what Wikipedia says.
[i]Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".
Valid ad hominem arguments occur in informal logic, where the person making the argument relies on arguments from authority such as testimony, expertise, or on a selective presentation of information supporting the position they are advocating. In this case, counter-arguments may be made that the target is dishonest, lacks the claimed expertise, or has a conflict of interest. Another type of valid ad hominem argument generally only encountered in specialized philosophical usage refers to the dialectical strategy of using the target's own beliefs and arguments against them, while not agreeing with the validity of those beliefs and arguments.[/i]
First off – the term “ad hominem” refers to an argument. An insult is an insult, not an ad hominem attack. This is the most common misuse of the concept. “@Bitter Crank, you’re a midwestern hayseed,” is an insult, no matter how true it may be. It is not an ad hominem argument. That doesn’t mean that insults are appropriate in a philosophical discussion. I guess if I were to say “Bitter Crank, your argument is bullshit because you’re a midwestern hayseed who doesn’t understand anything,” that would be an ad hominem argument.
The second paragraph of the Wikipedia discussion deals with a question I’ve thought about a lot. It seems like calling someone’s credibility and qualifications into question is appropriate in some situations. Does that mean only when discussing matters of fact? I think it’s ok to say something like “You are not a trained or educated physicist and I don’t think you are qualified to say that Einstein is wrong about everything based on an article you read in ‘Discover’.” It probably isn’t ok to say “You are not a trained philosopher and, for that reason, your opinion on the influence of Plato on Kant is not credible.”
I could use some help clarifying when it is appropriate to call an argument “ad hominem” and when it is not. I have misused this phrase myself. On the other hand, as I noted, we can avoid the whole problem by saying something like “Your comment does not address the argument I made.”
Comments (95)
Some old textbooks (not in English) on the topic of "introduction to critical thinking and informal logic" had a nice introduction where the context of informal fallacies was explained -- when is it appropriate to call something a fallacy and when not. Unfortunately, while there are many resources for informal fallacies on the internet, I don't know of any that would have such an introduction like those old textbooks. I'll keep looking though, because it would often come handy.
But in general, unless someone writes out their argument in the form of a concise syllogism, the conversation should be counted as a discussion, a work in progress, a mutual effort, and while it is still just that, it would be overreaching to already call out fallacies.
I look at this Wiki page at least a few times a year, and I can say it has been changed a lot over time. Have you read the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Criticism_as_a_fallacy and the references for it?
As for ad hominem specifically, I agree that it very rarely turns up as a genuine fallacy in a discussion, and most charges of ad hominem come from people who think it's a fancy Latin for an insult.
If you said that bartricks was not worth listening to on account of him being an obnoxious dimwit, you would not committing an ad hominem fallacy - on the contrary, you would be very reasonable. You would be committing the fallacy if you said that batricks' argument was refuted on account of him being an obnoxious dimwit, but who ever does that?
Yes, I did read it. Here it is.
[i]Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue, as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.
The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning (discussing facts about the speaker or author relative to the value of his statements) is essential to understanding certain moral issues due to the connection between individual persons and morality (or moral claims), and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning (involving facts beyond dispute or clearly established) of philosophical naturalism.[/i]
I think this gets to the heart of the difficulties in the way we use the term - the ambiguity and uncertainty.
Um... Hmm...Well... No comment.
I think even if they did put their argument in the form of a strict syllogism, you are under no obligation to do the same with your own argument, except in the context of a formal debate.
Other than that, it's just a discussion, conversation or, simply, exchange of views which is what it tends to be in most cases anyway.
As a general principle, insults and ad hominems do not contribute to civilized dialogue and I think they should not be allowed on a forum.
Which brings us back to my original concern - What should be considered an ad hominem argument and when, if ever, is it appropriate.
I think the most common problem with the logical fallacies is that people interpret them as informal language and use them in informal debates. However, for most informal settings, especially discussions among laymen, reasoning that would be fallacious in a strictly deductive argument is entirely rational:
Correlation does imply causation if you use imply in the informal usage of "is a common indication of".
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence for many everyday applications
Someone's character is often a good heuristic for the quality and trustworthiness of their arguments.
With ad-hominem specifically, the most common rhethorical tactic to attack someone's argument by attacking their character is poisoning the well, which is not technically an ad-hominem attack, but has the same goal. If the well gets too poisoned, to stay in the metaphor, discussions tend to shut down or devolve into shouting matches, so in terms of having a healthy forum debate, I think that's one of the core things to watch out for.
But of course it is occaisonally appropriate to call attention to posters that have a history of dishonest argument. However, it should probably be done in PM form rather than on the open forum.
That is a matter of debate. But you could, for example, start with words and expressions that fall under the general category of "invective" or "insult" and that are instantly recognizable as such by most people.
Personally, I tend not to use or react to them because it would be a waste of time. One should be able to take a "philosophical" approach in these cases, but the fact remains that they tend to lower instead of raise the level and quality of the discussion or conversation.
Half of the time people may search for something online and come across discussions on a forum only to discover ad hominems and other off-putting stuff that shouldn't be there in the first place.
The same rationale is why they exist. If a person has a legitimate argument then they wouldn't need to use a logical fallacy to convey it. Instead of explaining why this particular slippery slope argument is BS it's easier to generalize. It's like the philosophical equivalent of protesting being labeled a liar when you are not telling the truth.
In brief, if the characteristics of a person constitute a disconfirming instance of what that person claims, then an argumentum ad hominem is not a fallacious. If the person making a claim individually embodies a counterexample which disproves that person's own claim, then it is not a fallacy to point out this fact to that person. At the same time, many ad hominem arguments provide some evidence and in those cases cannot be considered completely irrelevant arguments.
https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html
(See list of examples)
* * *
The major difficulty with labeling a piece of reasoning an Ad Hominem Fallacy is deciding whether the personal attack is relevant or irrelevant. For example, attacks on a person for their immoral sexual conduct are irrelevant to the quality of their mathematical reasoning, but they are relevant to arguments promoting the person for a leadership position in a church or mosque.
https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AdHominem
(See the linked resources above.)
Non-fallacious ad hominems can often be found and made when it comes to issues of morality, religion, and spirituality.
This is a well thought out, clear, and useful discussion. Thanks.
As you say, it's pretty clear to me when someone is just being insulting. It is less clear when it might be appropriate to raise questions about someone's personal characteristics in an argument.
If you're saying people call things logical fallacies because their too lazy to be more specific about their objections, I agree with you.
We can go back and forth in deciding when a personal attack is an appropriate argument. It would just be easier if people were clearer and didn't use jargon like "ad hominem." Instead of saying "That's an ad hominem argument," say "My educational status is not relevant to the argument I am making." The idea of a logical fallacy makes it easy for people on both sides not to face the real problems with inappropriate arguments.
I resemble the remark, being someone who uses that "jargon" on occasion.
The references to arguments based upon authority, as noted in the Wiki page, are germane because arguing upon the basis of authority is also considered a fallacy in many situations. It is not a matter of using a rhetorical device canceling the merit of what is said. Once a matter is deferred to other people and their credentials or lack of them, the argument is weaker than one made by not relying upon those references.
Agreed, but there are times when credentials are relevant.
But Clark, all those statements are true! I WANT to be a smart East Coast urban sophisticate, but what with oat chaff in my hair, and bullshit between my ears, it's too difficult to pull it off. I've never been accused of being suave. I've never started a trend. Nothing I said went viral. I'm a non-influencer incarnate and incognito.
I have it much easier than St. Thomas. I didn't have to write the Summa Theoogicae, only to discover that I had been turning out theological pulp fiction. I've been consistently turning out silage ever since I learned how to write. There will be no inconvenient revelations.
A new logical fallacy - the midwestern self-deprecatory self-ad hominem.
The Taoist in you speaks. I'm all ears.
Fortunately or not, you haven't said anything we don't know already. What looked promising turned out to be a major disappointment.
The ad hominem fallacy is premised on a simple truth: bad people can make good arguments and before I forget, good people can make good arguments. Conversely, bad people will sometimes argue badly but the thing is even good people are susceptible to the same malady.
Put simply, no correlation exists between the character of a person (good/bad/both/neither) and the quality of the argument fae makes. Thus, to attack someone (I think you used the word "insult") in an argument is to completely miss the point - you're fallaciously insinuating that character bears on the how good an argument is but that's false.
A true Taoist who really isn't a Taoist would recognize that there should be exceptions to this rule of thumb and there are. You see it in movies with a legal plot. The lawyer attempts to discredit a testimony by casting doubt on the character (liar, druggie, mobster, felon, basically biased, etc.) of the witness. A lawyer isn't guilty of an ad hominem in this case because character is germane, so they say, to the truth of a testimony.
That's all for now, folks!
:lol:
Quoting Bitter Crank
:lol: × 2
:clap: My neural network has been rearranged!
[quote=Angelfire.com]Te Shan burnt all this commentaries and books on Zen within hours of his awakening to the truth. Why? Zen master Munan gave Shoju his sacred book on Zen that had been passed down through seven generations of masters. Shoju threw it into burning coals.
Why?
[/quote]
WHY? WHY? WHY?....ad :vomit:
The term "ad hominem" applies to arguments. An insult is not an argument and is not an ad hominem attack.
Well, that's not what I said. Insults constitute ad hominems i.e. dishing out insults when an argument is underway is ad hominem. That's what I think anyway.
The form of an ad hominem looks like this:
A makes an argument T to B.
B launches an attack A's character and (erroneously) concludes argument T is no good.
Attack on A's character can be done and is done with insults.
Well, this is just a philosophy discussion forum, not the Holy Inquisition. So, no pressure.
There are such times. By saying that using such references are not cancellations of an argument, it is meant that deferring to others can become necessary when the matter involves ideas or theories beyond one's personal competence.
But framing an argument as invalid because someone is less competent than oneself can only be gratuitous to any point established to support the view.
The ad hominem is using the insult as a reason to not accept the argument being made as a valid argument. So why cast an insult as a response to an argument being made if it's not an attempt to invalidate the argument that they made?
You're confusing simply casting insults at people with casting insults at people as a response to an argument that they made. As such, insults of any kind simply don't belong on a philosophy forum.
The term "ad hominem" refers to arguments. An insult is not an argument.
As you well know, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
That's the main question I'm trying to get at - when is it reasonable to raise questions about something personal about someone as an argument. If someone were to say "Einstein was wrong about the speed of light," I think it would be reasonable for me to ask how the person is qualified to make that statement.
An ad hominem argument does not have to be an insult. Here's one of my favorite ad hominem arguments. "But you're a cashier." Fairly long ( minute 30 seconds), so you might want to skip it.
Sometimes (often), the insulting party expects that the insultee will infer the intended argument, based on the discussion thus far. People usually don't speak in concise syllogisms, but use other forms of discourse, often skipping some steps (under the assumption that the reader will be able to correctly infer them themselves). When a discussion begins to contain insults, this can be taken as a clue to infer what argument is actually being made prior to that, it tends to be possible to (re)construct it.
But MP taught us to.
I see no need to make it personal like that. If one is so inclined to have a conversation on the topic of Einstein being wrong about the speed of light, one can simply summon the claimant to elaborate, explain, and then take it from there.
If, however, one were to assume that a person's academic credentials or lack thereof is a reason to dismiss their claim at the onset, then one is venturing into the territory of the fallacious ad hominem.
Dr. Baker: Mr. Clark, you have a bent framerjamet. I recommend you eat one dog turd a day till it resolves itself.
Mr. Clark: I'd like to see your med school diploma please.
The Einstein factor shows how one has to be as capable as he was to argue on his level. Using him as a reference may be valid as a point of reference but the argument is no longer about what one can present as one's own.
When arguing with someone who is less capable than oneself, nothing is to be gained by making much of it. It does not increase the strength of an argument to do so. Socrates is a good example to follow. He casted ridicule without reference to his interrogators' deficiencies. That is how it is done.
Dr. Baker: Mr. Clark, you have an inflamed spleen. I recommend you take this medication once a day till it resolves itself.
Mr. Clark: I'd like to see your med school diploma please.
I think a distinction must be made here between theoretical and practical thinking: if I want to know about education, I read Rousseau; if instead I want someone to raise my child, I hire a good and loving nanny.
Quoting Leghorn
My answer to the two of you is the same - I think there are times when personal or professional facts about a person are relevant to the legitimacy of their argument or opinion. The example often given is court proceedings. Typically, technical witnesses are not allowed to testify unless they can show they are appropriately qualified.
True, an adhominem is a (fallacious) argument. The surest, commonest, mayhaps the only, way to commit it is by resorting to insults.
What's the difference between saying that someone is not worth listening to, and saying that their arguments are vacuous, and thus refuted?
This is an inappropriate example. Of course a person's expertise is an important factor in any decision as to whether to listen to their purportedly expert advice. But the ad hominem fallacy is usually committed in contexts where there is no definable of certifiable expertise, or at least not the kind of expertise which guarantees or at least produces tendencies towards consensus of opinion. Philosophy is such an enterprise. An example of the ad hominem fallacy would be saying that if Heidegger was a Nazi, then he could not have said anything philosophically important or interesting.
If you bite, then you must put aside questions about qualifications and assess the argument on its own merit. But you don't have to bite - you could decide that giving a serious consideration to the argument isn't worth your time. Refusing to play doesn't break the rules of the game, since there is no rule that you must play.
Quoting Janus
Saying that an argument is vacuous characterizes an argument, not a person, so this wouldn't be ad hominem.
It was badly expressed; and I omitted some detail. What I meant to say was that claiming that someone's arguments are vacuous because the person is an idiot, not sufficiently educated, right wing, an anti-semite, racist or whatever reason other than explaining what is wrong with their actual arguments, is no different than saying that someone is simply not worth listening to. Either way, that just is the ad hominem fallacy.
Fallacies just make the discussion low quality. We turn to philosophy in order to lift a discussion up to a higher standard. If a group of people sits at a restaurant discussing "determination and free will", that's not really a place to have a moderator, arguments said within a time frame, examinations of premisses etc. It's just a casual discussion about the concept.
However, if the discussion is a philosophical one, then it needs to have certain rules in order to actually move a subject forward. If it doesn't have this backbone, then it will just be a bullshitting mosh pit that leads nowhere.
Demanding philosophical scrutiny and pointing out fallacies is meant to increase the quality of the other speaker. If their argument is of low quality, pointing out fallacies means pointing out the flaws in the argument until the argument is without those flaws.
There's no point in putting together counter-arguments to an argument filled with fallacies as there's no logic to deconstruct before forming the new argument. The discussion is at a standstill.
Maybe it's better to actually learn the knowledge about fallacies and put some effort into making arguments that don't feature them? Doing the opposite would just degrade the quality of a philosophical debate. There's a reason for them to exist.
Of course, you're joking right? Many folk use them interchangeably to where it really doesn't matter. Especially considering the informal nature of most philosophy sites.
In a cognitive science way, folk seem to believe most ad hominem somehow empowers their Being, and gives them a kind of strange ego boost, hence:
“The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame in continuing along that path."
— Philosophim
I'm trying to check out the limits of what "ad hominem" means. The example I used is the type that is generally mentioned in discussions of the "fallacy" to show it is not always a fallacy. So it is not an inappropriate example.
On the other hand, you're right. The main thing I want is to understand what "ad hominem" means on the forum. There are questions of facts raised here. On the forum, because it's informal and not very rigorous, arguments don't generally stand by themselves. The credibility and basis of knowledge of members is sometimes an issue.
On the contrary, It's only a fallacy if your intention is to explain what is wrong with the argument. The way you phrased it here would be an ad hominem, because you are judging an argument on the basis of the character of the person who put it forward. If you decline to engage with the argument, then you cannot be committing a fallacy. You cannot break any rules if you aren't playing to begin with.
"The world is an oblate spheroid in shape."
"Are you a physicist, a geologist, a planetary scientist, an astronmer....any of those?"
"Nope. I'm a janitor, and barely passed Grade 10 decades ago."
"You're an idiot. You're uneducated, yet you have the effrontery to make claims about things you can't understand and for which you possess no formal credentials."
"All true. I'm dull, anti-intellectual, and I'm both old and ugly. Now, back to my assertion...."
I don't think biting or quitting are my only choices, although I do avoid argument now that I would have jumped into a year or two ago.
As I've said, because the forum is informal and lots of stuff gets discussed here, many of the questions hinge on questions of fact. When that happens, a persons qualifications, experience, or education may be relevant. Example - people keep claiming that Einstein was wrong about the speed of light because the big bang happened 14 billion years ago but the universe is 45 light years across. I've read explanations of why this is, and I sort of understand them, but it still bothers me. If, in response to one of these claims, I say "I don't really understand all of this, but I don't think you do either, so, I'll stick with Einstein." That is an ad hominem argument which I think is appropriate.
@SophistiCat & @Janus What about this?
SophistiCat: I believe in the Golden Rule - do to others as you would have them do to you.
Janus: That's bullshit. You beat your kids, treat your employees like crap, and cheat your customers.
Is that a legitimate argument?
What about this?
"The growth on you leg is benign. Just rub some of this on it ."
"Are you a doctor?"
"Nope. I'm a janitor, and barely passed Grade 10 decades ago."
"You're an idiot. You're uneducated, yet you have the effrontery to make claims about things you can't understand and for which you possess no formal credentials."
"All true. I'm dull, anti-intellectual, and I'm both old and ugly. Now, back to my assertion...."
In the above example with the doctor, the patient would commit an ad hominem fallacy (specifically, a fallacious argument from authority), if he concluded that any advice given by the doctor is good and should be followed, regardless of how absurd it may seem, on account that docotrs must be unquestioningly trusted and their advice followed.
Here's a real example:
A couple of years back in Slovenia, a case became public where a child was born with a rare foot deformity, and a doctor apparently advised the parents to amputate the foot. They were upset and turned to the media and the public for help. Gradually, it became known that there exist specialists for this type of deformity, just not in Slovenia and that health insurance doesn't cover the treatment. It's one of those rare medical conditions for which one has to seek treatment in a bigger country.
What we don't know is how the initial conversation between the parents and the doctor went. We don't know whether he said something like
"Amputation is the only option"
or
"In this country, with your medical insurance, amputation is the only option".
Given how callous and legalistic some doctors can be, the former is possible. In this case, if the parents went with the doctor's advice and had the child's foot amputated, they would be commiting a fallacious argument from authority (for concluding that a doctor's advice must be followed, regardless of how absurd it may seem). But if he said that, and they sought a second opinion and other help, they wouldn't commit such a fallacy.
If, however, the doctor qualified his statement, implying that treatment is available, just not in this country and with this medical insurance, that would change the whole situation.
Do you mean invalid or unsound, or in fact vacuous?
If the latter, then your pair above means roughly the same.
It seems your issue is specifically with appeal to authority (implicitly on your part!), because this same theme keeps coming up in your posts.
Quoting T Clark
I don't know how to say this nicely, but you sound a bit ... naive. A bit like a kid in a candy store who can't decide what to choose.
Quoting T Clark
It's rather that you don't raise enough questions about yourself and about why you're reading ro discussing something.
Part of thinking critically is determining your own intentions and your own reasons for reading something or engaging in discussion about it. But given what you say above, you seem like someone who has a chaotic, unsystematic approach to reading and discussing. No amount of other people proving their credentials, or you proving their lack of those can make up for your own lack of clarity about what you want to get out of a conversation.
Yes. I think ad hominem arguments overlap with appeals to authority. My attitude is that an appeal to authority is appropriate sometimes.
Quoting baker
I don't know what you mean. Hey, wait a minute!!! Isn't calling me "naive" an ad hominem argument!!! You did this on purpose didn't you?
Quoting baker
I don't know what this means either.
Quoting baker
I'm trying to figure out whether this is an ad hominem argument too. I think it is. Boy. This is fun.
I think it would do you good to read some books on critical thinking.
Here's a nice one:
https://books.google.si/books?id=0fVADwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=sl#v=onepage&q&f=false
WOW!! You're really good at this.
If its ethics and morality, it seems ad homs are more prevalent.
Quoting Christoffer
Depending on the particular discussion, it is not uncommon for these to be good descriptions of what goes on here on the forum. It's an informal situation and rules can be looser.
Quoting Christoffer
I don't think waving the logical fallacy yellow card is a very effective way to improve the quality of discussions. First off, people don't know what they mean. When they think they know what one means, they're often wrong. They use them in incorrect situations. Solution - describe the problem with the argument rather than just labelling it.
Philosopher 1 - You've never taken a philosophy course. That undermines your credibility. Why should I listen to your argument?
Philosopher 2 - My education is not relevant to the argument I have made. Please respond to what I've written.
Philosopher 1 - I don't know how to say this nicely, but you sound a bit ... naive.
I am weedeating a steep bank. I slip and fall and, in attempting to catch myself, impale a sharp-ended woody stalk into my left wrist...
...in the ER I watch the doctor pull chips of wood out of my numbed wrist. When he grabs a certain piece and pulls with his forceps and it will not budge, becoming concerned I remark, “Are you sure you have got hold of a piece of wood??” He pauses, quits pulling out wood and orders an x-ray. The scan comes back negative, he sews me up and sends me home...
...next day a red glow begins spreading up my arm to my shoulder. I return to the ER, and a different doctor orders an ultrasound, which comes back positive for a foreign object. Surgery is done immediately, and an inch-long piece of wood is removed from my wrist. I spend three days and nights in hospital being pumped with intravenous antibiotics.
After I am released I do a little research on Google and discover that wood is invisible on an x-ray.
I seriously doubt my experience is unique, ie, being cared for by an incompetent or perhaps even malevolent “expert” with “credentials”. Indeed, I have heard too many other stories to believe or trust someone on mere credentials, when that means a diploma on a wall, or a position in a hospital or anywhere else.
“Credential” literally means “what generates trust”. The best credential in any field of expertise is not the formal, but rather the informal one: testimony by ppl who were helped. Someone with supposed knowledge that is specialized, not part of general knowledge, can argue to the ppl either honestly or dishonestly to whatever end, good or ill, he wishes; for he knows that they do not have experience of the narrow specialty he can claim to be expert in.
Neither is bad arguments and low-quality reasoning. I would say that if a forum thread leads to a "bullshitting mosh pit that leads nowhere", then pointing out fallacies and biases can absolutely be a way to straighten the discussion up and get it on track towards something instead of just being some random internet debate like on any other forum that isn't a forum dedicated to philosophical discussion.
The topics posted on this forum require a lot of education and knowledge, why would knowledge of fallacies and biases be any different?
The idea is not to have forum "laws" that fallacies and biases cannot exist, but instead try and encourage people to actually break down their own arguments in order to improve their quality. This should absolutely be encouraged on a philosophy forum and is pretty much done so by the forum guidelines, but there's rarely anything done about the bs arguments.
Having a clear focus on fallacies and biases as solutions to avoid "bullshitting mosh pits that leads nowhere", is in my opinion a positive thing for increasing the quality. I see no reason to fear them other than for those with a notion about their own ability to create a reasonable argument.
If someone points out a hole in logic, a specific fallacy, or a bias that seems to get in the way of a reasonable argument, then, like all other normal philosophical discussions, the person making those lacking arguments need to change it to make more sense or plug those logical holes.
It's just basic philosophical behavior in discussions and I think this forum encourages too little of such standard philosophical behavior in discussions.
On the other hand, the woods are full of people who will give testimony that they have been helped by aromatherapy, crystals, homeopathy, faith healing, weight watchers, and on and on. The fact that we can't always trust credentials doesn't mean they don't have ay value.
My wife is a nurse. I can't imagine how anyone survives the health care system without a nurse in the family.
What would take this discussion '[from] the man' and keep it on matters of relevance would have been:
"Bag balm and the other suggestions seem to me drastic, an are not indicated in any medical advice I have received to date. Why do you suggest these remedies?"
"I dunno, I'm just a janitor, and an idiot.'
'Well, on that we can agree.' No ad hominem.
Seriously, I thought you were joking - criticizing my ideas about ad hominem arguments by making ad hominem arguments against me. It would have been a great joke.
I guess it comes down to that - I do not believe a focus on fallacies will improve the quality of discussions. If you think someone has their facts wrong or has provided inadequate justification, say so and explain why. If you think someone has made an incorrect inference or deduction, say so and explain why. Just shouting out "logical fallacy" doesn't convince anyone. Too many boys have cried "wolf" before. Everybody knows there's a good chance you're using the term incorrectly because so many others have. Just explain in regular language what your problem with the argument is.
An ad hominem argument is not necessarily unreasonable. It would be reasonable for me to question the knowledge of someone I didn't know who made a medical diagnosis for me.
You mean to say a bad person can't come up with a good argument? Do you mean to say bad people are bad precisely because they don't know what a good argument is and ergo, they'll tend to make bad arguments? Ad hominem thus ain't fallacious. @T Clark might find the answer interesting.
But that's not what I'm saying. Ironically you are making me use this argument as an example of how it is used. You are essentially straw-manning my argument. I'm not saying that someone is just saying a fallacy and using that as a way to dismiss other's arguments, I'm saying, like right now, that pointing out fallacies and biases and then explaining why they are applicable is the way to use them.
Since a fallacy used by someone else, or a bias they show is not recognized by the speaker of that argument, hence why they fail the argument because of them, it doesn't work to just say which bias or fallacy they are guilty of. You have to explain why. Like here, when you take my argument and simplify it down to just using fallacies as something to drop in arguments, that is not what I'm talking about.
To ask for better arguments from someone who is constantly doing low-quality reasoning, and pointing out which flaws they have in their reasoning through pointing out their fallacies or biases, is absolutely reasonable when the aim is to conduct a discussion or debate through philosophical means.
The point is not to "win" an argument by pointing out fallacies and biases, it is to improve the quality of arguments so that there actually is a forward momentum of thought for both parties. Someone who ignores making better arguments is not someone I would consider philosophically able, but rather closer to evangelists, regardless of topic. Someone who just says or preaches their opinion and argues for that regardless of the quality of the counterarguments, regardless of how bad their own logic is, and regardless of how good the opponent's logic is.
An argument needs to be solid, it needs to have good thought out premises. We don't need to use the classic deduction/induction format, but it needs to have a logical throughline. But for argument's sake I can make one here.
p1. Fallacies and biases are flaws in reasoning that break the logic of someone's conclusion.
p2. Breaking the logic means the discussion is at a standstill until it has been solved.
p3. The quality of both side's arguments is improved when there's an active attempt to discuss without fallacies and biases.
p4. Pointing out fallacies and biases is helping the other side improve the quality of their argument.
p5. Pointing out fallacies and biases is helping the other side find the actual core of their argument.
p6. Pointing out fallacies and biases is not a valid argument in itself.
Conclusion: Avoiding fallacies and biases help to improve the quality of a discussion and pointing them out helps both sides moving forward towards a conclusion.
That's what I said! :chin:
I wasn't joking, I replied to your OP request. I thought about what resources could be useful for learning about the topic you raised, and I posted some links to them. Have you read them?
I agree. It is generally when action, such as medical treatment, is required that it becomes most important to determine the truth.
Oops! :sweat:
That probably isn't as much an issue with metaphysics, philosophy of science, philosophy of art, etc.; but when it comes to ethics, morality, and political philosophy, I'm not so sure.
Good point!
To make sure we're talking about the same thing, when you say I'm "straw-manning" your argument, you mean I'm attributing an argument to you that you never made. Correct? If so, it was on account of a misunderstanding, not an attempt to win the argument. I have no problem with explaining the problems with another person's argument. As I've said from the beginning, it is labelling an argument as a logical fallacy I object to. Doing that allows people to criticize another person's argument without thinking through the reasons. It also makes it easier for the other person to dismiss the criticism.
That just raised a question for me - is labelling a person's argument a logical fallacy an example of an argument from authority? I'm not sure.
Quoting Christoffer
Yes, this is my point. What fallacy is it when we agree on something but keep arguing anyway? Whatever you call it, it's one my wife and I get caught in all the time.
Quoting Christoffer
Agreed.
Quoting Christoffer
Agreed.
No. I don't believe your ad hominem argument criticizing the contents of my posts was valid.
Let's quit this back and forth. I'll give you the last word.
*sigh*
To criticize the logic in someone's argument, pointing out fallacies is still a valid way. What you are attributing my argument to being, is - (in terms of a strawman, making it a simplified version of my real argument and in so make it easier to counter, i.e making an argument I didn't make) - that you just point out fallacies and nothing more. I've never said that the one pointing out the flaws in logic of the other speaker shouldn't do the job themselves of explaining the lack of logic. But pointing out which fallacy is being made can make it crystal clear what the problem is, rather than trying to invent the wheel and explain the basics of something already publically defined.
Quoting T Clark
No. The logical fallacies are logical flaws, it's like math. If I say that 2 + 2 is 4, do you think that's an appeal to authority?
Quoting T Clark
But still makes it easier for the one with flaws in logic to understand where the flaw was made and how.
Generally speaking, it's like if you say 2 + 2 is 5 and instead of me just showing you two stones and two other stones and ask what they make together, I go on a rant for ten minutes on how stones can be single things and if you can imagine two stones, like those on the ground, but in some abstract way combine them, then attribute numbers to them and then you will know that... Just show the stones and get to the point, it's wrong, it's 4.
The existence of fallacies and biases is there to make it easier to get rid of flaws in logic. I don't understand the reason to not use them in a discussion. If someone misuses them, it would be painfully obvious for that person. But it would be just like any other who has flaws in logic. You tell them their fallacy is wrong. But using them right is a shortcut through hours of unnecessary talk that can be settled in a short sentence.
The problem isn't pointing out fallacies or biases, the problem is people never learning to understand what they mean or how to check the logic in their own argument. The problem is that people can't write reasonable arguments, not that others point out fallacies in their flawed reasoning. It's like you are defending the incompetent speakers trying to point out that the competent ones "are the real problem". Don't get it.
You and I seem to agree on most of this. We're just batting around the details. I'm satisfied where things stand.
Sure, but that wasn't what I intended to say as I already explained. I explained that I meant to say that if you claim their arguments are vacuous because they, as people, are whatever, that is no different
than saying they are not worth listening to..
Quoting SophistiCat
So, claiming that all someones arguments are vacuous of fallacious on account of what kind of person they are would be an ad hominem even if you don't bother to apply that "criteria" to any of their actual arguments.
Quoting T Clark
Sure, you might conclude that someone is an idiot on account of their constantly presenting invalid arguments and/ or baseless claims. That may or may not be a reasonable conclusion, but at least it would be based on examination of their arguments, and not on their religion or politics or facility with language.
Quoting baker
If their arguments are vacuous then they would be invalid and or unsound no? I think the point about the ad hominem fallacy is that it consists in assuming that someone's arguments are invalid or unsound or vacuous without examining their actual arguments.
I would say that the fact that someone who propounds a principle may not follow that principle says nothing about the principle and everything about them. So, if they claim to believe in a principle that they apparently make no effort to practice then their claim to believe in the principle may indeed be bullshit, but not necessarily so.
This could be a genetic fallacy - where the argument is rejected purely based on the source from which the argument is made. Some fallacies seem to overlap - the point being attack the argument, not the person making the argument.
Not sure what you mean. Examples?
Or simply not to your liking, but possibly still valid and sound.
I've never seen the term "vacuous" in literature about logic. It sounds more like a Jane Austen word, a haughty derision.
Sure.
But you're a cashier!
The unspoken part we have to infer is:
You're a cashier, which is a lowly job not deserving respect, therefore, you're in no position to reject a romantic relationship with me on account that you don't respect my stand-up comedy act.