Inspired by this thread, where it was suggested several times that The Washington Times’ recent report that the HRC campaign was the source of swiftboating-rumors about Barack Obama being a crypto-Muslim can reasonably be dismissed out of hand because it comes from The Washington Times.
Of course the argumentum ad hominem is always a fallacy in strictly logical terms, in the sense that the source of an argument has nothing to do with its internal logical consistency, which can be evaluated based strictly on the content of the argument as stated. But internal logical consistency is not the only important criterion by which to evaluate the truth or value of a given statement. In fact, generally speaking, for practical purposes, the most important piece of information in any message is the name of the messenger. Anyone care to dispute this?
Ad Hominem is a fallacy of rhetoric, not logic. Logical fallacies (like Affirmation of the Consequent) are always bogus. But rhetorical fallacies need context.
Edited to add: Rhetorical fallacies are sometimes called “rhetorical vices”, mainly to differentiate them from logical fallacies.
We’re not talking about faulty logic, but whether a source is trustworthy or not. In this case, there is no way to validate the source, and if you look at it closely (as was done in that thread), the accusations some people thought were there weren’t actually being made.
This isn’t about a fallacy, but about what constitutes good vs bad journalism.
There are other fallacies which are sometimes used without actually being a logical fallacy.
I might say to you “you’re either with me or against me” and not be using it as a fallacy of logic, but rather be making a statement. If you don’t support me on this, I will be considering you my enemy.
“Slippery slope” can be used the same way. Depending on the context, it’s not always a fallacy.
No relevant difference. An institution or organization, like an individual, can have a reputation for credibility or lack it, can be biased on some points, can have an agenda other than its stated agenda, etc.
Argument ad hominem is not necessarily a rhetorical vice - where it is an accusation of bias, it can be an instructive part of the weighing of evidence from a source.
For example: “be wary of accepting the figures and arguments proposed by X concerning tobacco addiction. While X claims to be a neutral expert, in fact he is heavily funded by the tobacco industry”.
Or: “the accusations made by the Swift Boaters should not be accepted at face value without independent verification, as their agenda is to ensure Bush’s election”.
In most basic form: “you are biased so your evidence on the point is suspect”.
Of course, this argument is subject to rebuttal - namely that evidence provided by a biased source is not of necessity untrue.
The name of the messenger may be an important piece of data, where they claim some sort of expertise, experience, or are accused of bias; but not necessarily otherwise. Nor is it necessarily determinative in any case. All of these factors - expertise, experience and bias - are subject to rebuttal by other arguments and evidence.
In summary, the name of the messenger is merely one item of data, the importance of which varies from case to case.
Indeed. If I have six apples and seven friends around, and one of my friends asks me for an apple, I’m perfectly justified to say “If I give you one, I’d have to give everyone else one, which I can’t do. Thus, I can’t give you an apple.”
In some circumstances, it’s a legitimate form of argument.
Argumentum ad hominemcan be a logical fallacy. If you are evaluating the logic of the following argument, it is a fallacy:
a. Joe says gambling should be legal.
b. Joe is a known crook.
c. Therefore, Joe’s assertion is invalid.
It is NEVER valid to assert that an argument lacks validity on the basis of the person who makes it. It is possibly a good idea to be skeptical about an argument on the basis of the person who makes it. But the argument itself should be judged on the merits of its own logic.
Often these days, the reference to the person is made not to dispute the validity of an argument they are making, but to assert the argument is not sound, meaning that the premises upon which it is based are not true, given the actual facts involved. Usually, the attack is made upon an assertion of fact made by a person whose neutrality on the subject is disputed (e.g.: cigarette makers offering statistics on nicotine addiction). It is to this sort of rhetorical usage that the OP refers.
I know I’ll want to edit this just AFTER the shiny edit button disappears.
Yeah, but that’s just a non sequitur — the real fallacy. When appeals[sup]*[/sup] are called logical fallacies, it’s understood that that means fallacies of so-called “informal” logic. They’re not fallacies of deductive wiffs. But I don’t like the mixing of the two, even though I know it’s ubiquitous (so much so that some philosophers/logicians have just given up trying to explain the difference). Informal logic is pretty much a synonym for formal rhetoric.
[sup]*[/sup] Appeals to pity, the man, popularity, authority, etc… all the “ad” things.
Actually, the ad hominem is a receiver discounting the sender of a message, while poisoning the well is a sender discounting the receivers of a message, if the sender expects them to disagree, i.e.:
“I know the liberals among us will gnash their teeth in fury when I say affirmative action should be ended, but doggone it, somebody has to stand up to them.”
or
“Even though conservatives will wail that I’m a soldier in the War on Christmas, I really don’t like to hear Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer 50 times a day in November.”
Poisoning the well is actually a pre-emptive ad hominem, in which one tries to discount any possible rebuttal by claiming it’s prompted by bias. The logical fallacy is that even if P implies Q (liberal teeth-gnashing implies support for affirmative action) does not mean Q implies P (support of affirmative action implies liberal teeth-gnashing). Q could have many causes beyond P.
Bryan is right, but I would add that there do exist biconditional implications where p <-> q. (P implies Q AND Q implies P). These are usually phrased as “if and only if” or “when and only when”. For example, “The bell rings when and only when the clock strikes noon.” In that case, if the bell rings, then it must be noon. Likewise, if it is noon, then the bell will ring.
It’s quite legitimate to apply the “poisoning the well” fallacy in a debate once it is understood that the well actually is poisoned on issues that relate to politics.
This would apply to not just to the Washington Times but equally to those papers considered to be on the opposite side of the political spectrum, such as the Washington Post and the New York Times.
They are equally untrustworthy when it comes to politics. They adopt a similar strategy in practicing their deceit, mostly in the slant or emphasis applied in the way that facts are presented or omitted. Generally speaking, outright fabrications are only used as a last resort.
That’s not to say that I refuse to cite articles from papers. As most people tend to think that a newspaper reporter is more trustworthy than some unaffiliated commentator on the net then it’s probably more convenient to do so.
To begin with, cite for the WP and NYT being “on the opposite side of the political spectrum” from the WT? From where I sit, WT is hard-right-shading-over-into-the-ultraviolet and WP maybe two degrees left of center – on the editorial page; while the latter has a much higher level of credibility level in the news section. By reputation and consensus, at least.
I miss Philosophy 101.