Ad Hominem Fallacy: Definition & Examples

[zoobyshoe]

So what? We don't have a Shoe Nonsequitor and a Whirlpools Nonsequitor. Why do we need a special class of nonsequitor for when human feelings are involved?

It's not a matter of needing anything. It's a matter of simply observing there are different classes of a phenomenon and identifying them:

All formal fallacies are special cases of non sequitur...

... Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies.

Which means Jimmy Snyder was right:

I suppose that every logical fallacy has a non sequitur in it somewhere. If so, then it doesn't shed any light on the subject to note that Ad Hominem fallicies are also non sequiturs.

(Unless, of course, he jumped over and edited the Wiki when no one was looking. Hehe.)

 

[leroyjenkens]

You make a good point. I think people misinterpret ad hominem in two ways; they either think that because the person insulted them, that must mean their argument is weak, thus needing insults to "strengthen" what they're saying, or they just don't know what a fallacy is and think that just the mere act of insulting someone somehow detracts from their own argument.

 

[KiwiKid]

Hem, I thought that ad homonem was also conclusions that didn't follow from the premises. I didnt think it was still an ad hominem if it was logically valid. So any time we comment on statistics of poor performance (or some such) are we committing ad hominem? Even when our premises are true and the conclusion follows?

Well, that depends. There really are two premises here. If I tell someone "X isn't able to help someone with his physics homework because you were always terrible at physics," the two premises are "X is terrible at physics", and (the unspoken premise) "being terrible at physics makes you unable to help someone out with their physics homework." This is logically correct, and presuming that both premises are right, this can't be considered an ad hominem.

Consider now me telling someone "X isn't able to help someone with his physics homework because he is an alcoholic," where the two premises are "X is an alcoholic" and "being an alcoholic makes you unable to help someone out with their physics homework." This is still logically correct in that the conclusion follows from the premises, but it is an ad hominem in that the second premise is obviously construed to be a personal attack. Thus, an ad hominem is a conclusion where a personal attack is used as the (often hidden in open sight) premise.

 

[Kholdstare]

I am not much into debating about this. But have you guys seen this link?

http://mason.gmu.edu/~cmcgloth/portfolio/fallacies/fallacies.html

 

[zoobyshoe]

I am not much into debating about this. But have you guys seen this link?

http://mason.gmu.edu/~cmcgloth/portfolio/fallacies/fallacies.html

Thanks! That site has a definition of Ad Hominem which I think is a lot clearer than the Wiki definition:

The Latin translates "to the man" and refers to the strategy of attacking the person rather than attacking the idea he presents. Rather than debate the original argument on its merits, the opponent makes an attack upon some irrelevant fact about the person presenting the theory or claim. This attack might be upon the character of the person, a group to which the person is connected, a circumstance related to the person, the person's sincerity, or prior actions of the person. The intent is to avoid addressing the logic or veracity of the original argument, and instead convince the audience that because the presenter is somehow “flawed”, then his ideas are also flawed. There are a number of variations of the ad hominem attack including attack by innuendo and tu quoque.

 

[Pythagorean]

"Rather than debate the original argument on its merits, the opponent makes an attack upon some irrelevant fact about the person presenting the theory or claim."

That's pretty much all I thought an ad hominem was (which looks a lot like a non sequitor to me).

But it seems the article also presents it more generally, as a strategy, not the actual fallacy itself, (thus an informal fallacy). So now we have a term that tries to guess the opponents motive (or strategy). So the declaration of an ad hominem might itself be considered an ad hominem (since you're guessing motives). If you can just demonstrate it's a non-sequitor, isn't that aiming a little more objectively? i.e., at the argument, not the arguer.

 

[zoobyshoe]

"Rather than debate the original argument on its merits, the opponent makes an attack upon some irrelevant fact about the person presenting the theory or claim."

That's pretty much all I thought an ad hominem was (which looks a lot like a non sequitor to me).

But it seems the article also presents it more generally, as a strategy, not the actual fallacy itself, (thus an informal fallacy). So now we have a term that tries to guess the opponents motive (or strategy). So the declaration of an ad hominem might itself be considered an ad hominem (since you're guessing motives). If you can just demonstrate it's a non-sequitor, isn't that aiming a little more objectively? i.e., at the argument, not the arguer.

If you read the introduction at that new link you will see that, yes, the author of that site tends to view logical fallacies as deliberate and premeditated more often than not. I disagree with that. In my experience they are usually the result of undisciplined emotional reasoning and the person committing them has no real idea they are fallacious or why.

 

[Pythagorean]

Via DH and KiwiKid, we have the exception that one of the premises can basically be "but it DOES follow (that person's character/performance influences outcome of truth statement)" and then we could say that premise was false, then it's no longer a nonsequitor, just a false premise.

And if the new premise actually turns out to be true (and thus by definition, it does follow) then it's no longer a fallacy.

Thus, again, informal fallacy.

 

[Pythagorean]

If you read the introduction at that new link you will see that, yes, the author of that site tends to view logical fallacies as deliberate and premeditated more often than not. I disagree with that. In my experience they are usually the result of undisciplined emotional reasoning and the person committing them has no real idea they are fallacious or why.

I get the feeling informal fallacies aren't really well defined, which is why they might be considered informal.

 

[Curious3141]

"Ad hominem" is playing the man, not the ball.

A "strawman argument" is putting words into someone's mouth, then challenging those words.

Hardly formal definitions, but easy enough to remember.

 

[zoobyshoe]

"Ad hominem" is playing the man, not the ball.

Right, but I think people could fit a mere insult or abusive comment into this informal rule of thumb.

 

[ThomasT]

People ought to read what this actually consists of, because I've noticed people mistaking mere insults for Ad Hominems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Calling someone an insulting or abusive name is not an Ad Hominem. Generally, an Ad Hominem is an attempt to discredit someone based on something about them that is actually unrelated to the issue at hand. These are Ad Hominems:

"Joe's political views are meaningless: he's an alcoholic."

"Don't let Sam correct your grammar, he believes in Ancient Aliens."

"It figures Thelma got sexually assaulted: she's been divorced twice and never goes to church."



These following are not Ad Hominems, just insults:

"Frank is a moron, and ugly on top of it."

"She is nuts."

"Edna is an ignorant hack."

"You'd have to be crazy not to like Ed Smith."



Therefore:

"You don't vote Republican? You're an idiot!"

Is not an Ad Hominem, just an insult. It might take place during the course of an argument, but it is not, itself, an argument of any sort.

I don't see many outright personal insults in PF posts. It's against the PF rules, and I think that most instances of this sort of thing are quickly recognized and punished according to PF guidelines.

So, what's the problem? If you just want to point out that ad hominem arguments are, in general, different from outright personal insults, then, OK, I agree.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't see many outright personal insults in PF posts. It's against the PF rules, and I think that most instances of this sort of thing are quickly recognized and punished according to PF guidelines.

So, what's the problem? If you just want to point out that ad hominem arguments are, in general, different from outright personal insults, then, OK, I agree.

Three times in the past year or so I have seen people reply to a criticism by saying something like: "Oh I see you are stooping to an Ad Hominem attack on me. That shows what you're like!" When you look at what was actually said, the best you could squeeze out of it was a low grade insult, not an Ad Hominem. This made me aware there are people around who don't understand what an Ad Hominem is. If they understood they are merely being insulted, then, if they wanted, they could report it, but usually it's so low grade that it would be making a mountain out of a mole hill to exercise that option.

 

[ThomasT]

Three times in the past year or so I have seen people reply to a criticism by saying something like: "Oh I see you are stooping to an Ad Hominem attack on me. That shows what you're like!" When you look at what was actually said, the best you could squeeze out of it was a low grade insult, not an Ad Hominem. This made me aware there are people around who don't understand what an Ad Hominem is. If they understood they are merely being insulted, then, if they wanted, they could report it, but usually it's so low grade that it would be making a mountain out of a mole hill to exercise that option.

Ok, I think I understand your point. I should probably qualify this by adding that I've been temporarily banned for insulting one or more PF contributors. And yes, I agree with what you're saying, ie., these were not, strictly speaking, ad hominem arguments, but rather just insults.

 

[phoenix:\\]

"Frank is a moron, and ugly on top of it."

So if Frank's argument was about beauty, etc..., the instance of calling him a "moron" and "ugly" is, in fact, an attempt to discredit his argument based on the perceptions of the person arguing against his argument. He is ugly and a moron, indicating he doesn't know beauty and isn't beautiful. It's not one of the most sophisticated arguments but the rhetoric of it is an attempt to discredit Frank. This type of argument is, in fact, an ad hominem, specifically, ad hominem abusive.

In that same light there are other forms of ad hominem, the one you are stating is just an argument against the person, where as the other forms are "ad hominems abusive"-based arguments in that they bring up irrelevant insults towards the one they are arguing against and ad hominem circumstantial.

 

[zoobyshoe]

 

[mheslep]

Nice ZZ

 

[NewtonianAlch]

Ad-hominem is not the same thing as non-sequitir, although an ad-hominem can be a part of the non-sequitir.

Ad-hominem is essentially the same as a red herring, except it's an attack on character that is irrelevant.

As the OP said, an insult in itself is not an ad-hominem, it is only an ad-hominem when it's part of an argument, and suddenly and irrelevantly the argument references or attacks one's character.

Ad-hominem can also take the form of "poisoning the well" where you often seen in courtroom dramas a prosecutor during his argument will randomly take the jury to remember that the accused is also "an alcoholic and cheats on his wife, therefore he is a liar" which often has no bearing on the case at hand.

Merely calling someone an idiot isn't an ad-hominem, it's a logical fallacy that renders your argument void because of the illegitimacy of the link between premise and conclusion.

 

[OmCheeto]

hmmm... How would you describe the following exchange:

 

[NewtonianAlch]

It's hard to say without the larger context, but formally it would be the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi; red herring, specifically an ad-hominem yes.

Since it looks like banter, it's hard to say.

It could also be classed as poisoning the well depending on the setting. If an Atheist were addressing a group of believers and explaining something, and someone plays the atheist card then it's just distracting from the issue at hand and hoping to divert attention by trying evoke negative feelings towards Atheists or whatever.

It happens all the time, and not solely for Atheists either, towards Christians, towards Muslims, towards gay people, wherever there is a majority vs minority issue.