https://forbiddentruthblog.com/2015/06/17/cage-lock-and-the-matrix-of-freedom-illusion/
So someone sent me the above link and I’m not sure what to make of it. I want to write it (along with severa other things on the same page) off as crazy, but isn’t that itself a logical fallacy? Like attacking the person instead of their argument?
An essay or blog’s incomprehensibility is not proof of its untruth.
But if someone writes something that doesn’t make a lick of sense, we can condemn it on those grounds. The link points to a big quivering pile of nonsense. “It isn’t even wrong.”
It’s more coherent than the Time Cube, which is mighty faint praise indeed.
Crazy =/= Wrong. (Although I would suspect there is a fairly strong correlation between the two.) But Crazy definitely == Crazy, and that, by itself, is a good reason to disregard a claim. Crazy isn’t “untrue” but it is “uninteresting.”
Imagine I said this:
I find your post to be confusing and possibly spamming us to read your own crazy webpage.
Is that an ad hominem argument? (Please note spelling.) No, it’s not. All I have to judge by is your argument, i.e. your words. Admittedly, one has to assume that words are written by a person. If the words are crazy, then the person writing them is likely to be crazy. Fortunately for sanity on the Internet, that’s not what an ad hominem is.
Imagine what I said instead was:
You’re only writing this because you hate people over five feet tall.
That’s ad hominem.
Note. I am over five feet tall. Please don’t hate me.
What Exapno said.
If you address something on its merits, that’s not ad hominem. The “article” contains confident-sounding but barely coherent assertions, no logical argument or evidence, and (so far as I can make any sense of it) it is laced with paranoid fantasy and conspiracy theorizing. It’s the product of a mind that is, at the very least, disordered. That’s not ad hominem, that’s a consideration of the writing on its merits.
Shorty.
The other things on that site are mostly the same thing.
So I can’t dismiss it by calling him crazy? That because that is crazy everything else is? I also read that he doesn’t accept dissenting views or debate any of this, and anything that disagrees is just waved as “you don’t have the ability to understand it”. Can I dismiss him on those grounds?
You can absolutely dismiss that jackass as being crazy. And, personally, I think you should. But to be GQ, that won’t necessarily be an ad homing dismissal.
https://forbiddentruthblog.com/2016/03/26/the-eight-foundational-mistakes-of-humanity
I’m guessing the same thing should apply to the above?
“Calling him crazy” is ad hominem. Calling his words crazy is not.
But the terms you’re really looking for are coherence and soundness.
Coherence = logical consistency in an argument’s structure (some people call this logical truth)…often, incoherence indicates some species of logical fallacy
Soundness = material truth in terms of semantics or meaning
An argument may possess one, the other or both. If someone is advancing a factive proposition, you can dismiss for lack of either or both qualities. However, if the person is advancing merely an opinion, you can always dismiss for lack of coherence (remember to look for logical fallacies) but you can only dismiss it for a lack of soundness if you can demonstrate the argument is false (because an opinion is not a factive proposition, it only asserts plausibility). Generally, if an argument makes no sense because it’s fallacious or otherwise not logically consistent, the argument is incoherent. If the weight of evidence proves it wrong, it is unsound.
I don’t agree that this kind of minor circumlocution makes the difference.
Rather, it hinges on whether the characterization is derived from the contents of the matter under discussion, and/or is directly relevant to it, or whether it’s based on irrelevant personal knowledge (perhaps drawn from elsewhere).
In this situation, denigrating the article because you happen to know the irrelevant information that author is (say) a convicted felon would still be ad hominem whether you said either:
“The guy who wrote this is a criminal! It has no value.”
or circumlocuted:
“These are the worthless words of a criminal.”
Similarly, if it’s a genuine inference derived from the incoherent content of the article under consideration that the article was written by a crazy person, then it is not ad hominem to express that opinion in either of these virtually identical ways:
“This is the writing of a crazy person.”
“The person who wrote this is crazy.”
No, because ad hominem isn’t the same as insulting.
It’s all about relevance.
I can say “You’re such an idiot you believe X is true, when in fact it’s not true, and that destroys your argument because [some chain of logic], you absolute knob.” and that isn’t ad hominem. As long as my chain of logic is relevant and sound, my argument is valid, and my insults are irrelevant.
However, if I say “You can’t be right about this because you’re a total moron.” that is ad hominem. Whether you’re an idiot is utterly irrelevant to how right your arguments are. I’m substituting insults for logic and evidence, and that is the heart of what ad hominem means.
This is relevant to “crazy” as well: Typically a crazy argument will be a mass of irrelevancies, topics connected by tangents instead of sound reasoning, a fever-dream of nonsense. It isn’t true or false because it isn’t actually saying anything. It’s just mumblefuck bullshit with no actual content. That’s the core of “Not even wrong”: There isn’t enough substance to the work to meaningfully critique it, so the only reasonable response is to chuck it in the trash can. The extreme end of this is the actual crazy of schizophrenic word salad, where the work is just disjointed phrases and neologisms and no meaningful communication is possible.
Depending on perspective and context, these could be reasonable dismissals. Suppose the “criminal” has a long history of burglaries and is again being investigated for the crime. In this case, fingerprints are found at the scene matching his. However, he has no alibi and insists he’s been framed. Would it be reasonable for the police to dismiss his claims and arrest him in this case? I think it would be. While this could be interpreted as a dismissal based on an ad hominem, this is not necessarily unreasonable when other factors, such as reliability of testimony, are applied.
How do you propose to determine whether the person is mentally deranged (i.e. crazy) over the internet? Personally, I would stay away from characterizations of the person and focus on actions (lexical expression, treatment of the material, etc.).
I didn’t say it was. An ad hominem fallacy is merely one where you dismiss a proposition based on an identity state of the speaker, rather than the characteristics of the speaker’s ideation. This, of course, is assuming that other factors are not in consideration.
Any time you designate a person with a label, you are speaking ad hominem (i.e. to the person). This is only a logical fallacy when you are using this identification as the basis for a logical challenge to reasoning. Otherwise, you’re simply applying labels. Also, let’s examine your statement above:
You would have an ad hominem fallacy here if you said, “X is false because you are an idiot.” But, you’ve actually said the opposite here. You’ve claimed the person is an idiot because X is false. This is actually a different fallacy called a non sequitur (i.e. your conclusion does not logically follow from your premise). This is a non sequitur because the assertion of a false proposition does not, by itself, prove someone is an idiot.
I can go along with that one.
No. Again, ad hominem occurs when you apply a label to a person. It only becomes a logical fallacy when you use this identification as the basis for a logical challenge to the person’s reasoning.
See my response to the other poster above. You’re in danger of running into a non sequitur here because proving someone is a crazy person over the internet will require a pretty high evidentiary bar.
Something else I would note here is that labeling ideation is not ad hominem because it speaks to ideation rather than the person. An example –
Bob: “Black men are always trying to rape white women.”
Ann: “That is an example of bigotry.”
Note that Ann is labeling Bob’s ideation, not Bob himself. If Ann’s claims are sound, a material consequence is the fact Bob is a bigot, but Ann did not call him that. In fact, this material consequence actually follows first from Bob’s own expression (because his expression meets the definition of bigotry). Effectively, Bob has called himself a bigot here. He can not blame Ann for the identity state he finds himself in when he is responsible for placing himself in that state.
Here is what The Nizkor Project has to say on the subject:
I think you agree with most of this, I just think it’s a nice and neat definition to have on hand here. I especially like the list. My only problem with what you’re saying is this:
That’s only true in a very etymological sense. However, we’re not speaking Latin, we’re using English-language terms of art, so the definition you propose is irrelevant.
Whether calling someone names is a non sequitur is, itself, irrelevant as long as those insults don’t form one of the premises of the actual argument.
Finally, “crazy” isn’t a formally-defined term. Anyone can call anyone else “crazy” and nobody can say they’re unambiguously wrong. And, ultimately, whether someone actually is schizophrenic or is merely deriving some obscure pleasure from posting word salad or paranoid rants to the Internet doesn’t really matter: If all you have is the text, all you can reason about is the persona which created the text. Similarly, in real life, if all you have is the observed behaviors, all you can reason about is the persona which generates those behaviors. In neither case do you have access to what’s behind the eyes.
Er, wut? This is a novel approach to fighting my hypothetical, but we’re not discussing crimefighting, Batman.
I gave “criminality” as a hypothetical irrelevant trait for the author of the OP’s article, one that would be irrelevant to the merits of the article. My point being that any way you mentioned that criminality in denigrating the article would be ad hominem, because it’s irrelevant. It does not hinge (as you claimed) on the whether the technical grammatical structure of the irrelevant denigration means you’re targeting the author’s words as opposed to the author himself. The ad hominem refers to the nature of the fallacious argument, not the syntax of a sentence.
This is your mistake. That’s not what ad hominem means at all. It’s short for Argumentum ad hominem, a specific logical fallacy.
I think the GQ answer is “this is wrong because you are crazy” is ad hominem. “You are crazy because this is wrong” is not ad hominem, as long as you establish that “this” is wrong.
I only read about halfway thru the linked article in the OP, and it is clear that the author has parts on order, but I reach that conclusion from the various non sequiturs, false framings, circular arguments, and other nonsense. It could be refuted, but unfortunately “you cannot reason a man out of a position he didn’t reason himself into”.
Regards,
Shodan
Parts on order? What does that mean?
But I guess if you read the rest of what’s on that page it is full of many mistakes. The appeal to nature fallacy is pretty rampant. I believe one said it was just a bunch of assertions. Check out the second link.
But also any dissenting view is dismissed as “you aren’t smart enough to understand”, is that a fallacy? What about not willing to debate said topics?
It means he’s a few elements short of a periodic table.
All right, it means that he’s not working properly and maybe replacing a few mental parts might help things.
Unless you’re running an exercise in logic, trying to parse craziness by assigning fallacies to the craziness is a waste of time, IMO. He’ll never listen to a word you say. A logical breakdown of craziness is an effort in futility.
You’ll certainly find this out if you stick around here and make the mistake of entering Great Debates.
An argument does not need to be one of the logical fallacies to be wrong.