The Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy

“…most often committed by those who
… accuse their opponents of ad hominem.”

Stephen Bond explains: One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is ad hominem. It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don’t need it when they’ve got ad hominem on their side. It’s the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed. In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker’s argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn’t there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person’s arguments. Therefore, if you can’t demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can’t demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent’s sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument. Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal “ad hominem” are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument. Here is Bond’s full explanation together with concrete examples of real ad hominems and misidentified ad hominems. These may help us distinguish situations when real ad hominem attacks occur from those in which we are merely offended. (Not to suggest that the latter do not require remedy, but the remedy isn’t to claim ad hominem victimhood.) To sum up, there are many ways to argue: with name calling as one of the least preferred methods and by offering sound arguments as the more rational—but not always most effective—approach. Ad hominem arguments do not rise to the level of either civility or reason.

See also:

How to Disagree

by Paul Graham

---

How to Disagree

Paul Graham’s 2008 essay titled How to Disagree presents a hierarchy of disagreement ranging from most primitive to most sophisticated:

1. Name-Calling

2. Ad Hominem

3. Responding to Tone

4. Contradiction

5. Counterargument

6. Refutation

7. Refuting the Central Point

---

Toxic Debate

Clearly, not everyone is rational or even civil with those they disagree. Some are motivated to assert superiority and dominate, with no interest in understanding perspectives of other individuals. They maintain their narrow-mindedness as they persist on pushing an egocentric agenda with little concern for the consequences. Some never rise above the level of personal attacks, ad hominem, and other logical fallacies. Unable to present a thoughtful argument, they use insults and anger to assert themselves and intimidate others. An influential individual may succeed in demonizing and marginalizing those who dare to disagree; invalidating and dismissing dissenting views as hateful attacks. This personality type will claim the moral high ground; deceiving everyone while insulting their critics, condemning those with different opinions, and attempting to hold up others as examples of irrationality. They lack in intellectual integrity and do not practice what they preach, but by diverting attention to their target, they can get away with it.

When to Walk Away

One option when one is confronted with this sort of uncivil behavior is to simply to walk away. We may seek out and engage persons with whom we disagree for the intellectual challenge, but not all are interested in—or capable of—rational discussion. It can make sense to walk away from those who refuse to clarify their ambiguous statements or substantiate their claims, and instead, condemn, demonize, and insult their adversary, but one must also consider if refraining from addressing uncivil behavior could actually be enabling it.

What should we do when those engaging in toxic behavior are on our side of the fence? Is it our responsibility to address their behavior? If holding them accountable results in animosity and possibly divisions within a group; is it worth it?

Questioning

See also: Asking Questions

No, you’re not entitled to your opinion.

No, you’re not entitled to your opinion.

By Patrick Stokes, Deakin University

Every year, I try to do at least two things with my students at least once. First, I make a point of addressing them as “philosophers” – a bit cheesy, but hopefully it encourages active learning.

Secondly, I say something like this: “I’m sure you’ve heard the expression ‘everyone is entitled to their opinion.’ Perhaps you’ve even said it yourself, maybe to head off an argument or bring one to a close. Well, as soon as you walk into this room, it’s no longer true. You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.”

A bit harsh? Perhaps, but philosophy teachers owe it to our students to teach them how to construct and defend an argument – and to recognize when a belief has become indefensible.

The problem with “I’m entitled to my opinion” is that, all too often, it’s used to shelter beliefs that should have been abandoned. It becomes shorthand for “I can say or think whatever I like” – and by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful. And this attitude feeds, I suggest, into the false equivalence between experts and non-experts that is an increasingly pernicious feature of our public discourse.     

Read the whole article 

This article was originally published at The Conversation.

Patrick Stokes does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

Critical thinking, part 1: A valuable argument

---

From: Six Vintage-Inspired Animations on Critical Thinking

skillsservices.wordpress.com

Related articles

• Introduction to Critical Thinking & Argument Mapping (ethicalrealism.wordpress.com)
• Standards of Critical Thinking (psychologytoday.com)
• Ending an argument (toddlohenry.com)

Propaganda

8 principles to guide critical thinking.

1. Be curious, ask questions. 2. Define terms. 3. Examine evidence. 4. Analyze assumptions and biases. 5. Avoid emotional reasoning. 6. Don’t oversimplify. 7. Consider other interpretations. 8. Tolerate uncertainty.

Thomas Hobbes

Civil discourse

---

The cardinal rule of civil discourse:

Make and break ARGUMENTS.
NEVER attack or belittle the
people making the arguments.

• A Discussion on Civil Discourse (tawhite.wordpress.com)
• Michel Foucault: Free Lectures on Truth, Discourse & The Self (downes.ca)
• Part VII: George Washington’s Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior (samuelatgilgal.wordpress.com)

Psychological manipulation

Psychological manipulation primarily involves:

• Concealing aggressive intentions and behaviors.
• Knowing the psychological vulnerabilities of the victim to determine what tactics are likely to be the most effective.
• Having a sufficient level of ruthlessness to have no qualms about causing harm to the victim if necessary.