The Logical Fallacy "ad hominem" and others, and How to Debate

[Stoid]

Why GD?
[ul]
[li] Debate is an art. (A nearly lost one) Debate has rules for how it is conducted, that’s why there is Great Debates AND In My Humble Opinion. [/li][li] Those rules include arguing honestly and to the best of one’s ability, with a very strong emphasis not only on backing up one’s opinion with citations to reliable evidence for one’s contentions (“cite?”), but also on sound reasoning and solid logic.[/li][li]While logical fallacies would appear to need no debate, since they have real definitions, I find that people not only misunderstand many of them, they argue over which is right.[/li][/ul]

Why, period?
This thread may go nowhere. I hope not, because we are here to fight ignorance, and understanding what the logical fallacies are is a critical tool in accomplishing that. Because people argue very, very badly a great deal of the time, and the SDMB is an ideal place to work on improving that.

And I hope and believe that the SDMB still, as it has always, attracts many people because they want to learn, they want to know more, understand things better, and there is nothing in the world more conducive to improving one’s knowledge and ability to think than to test it via debate. If all your thinking is done in the isolation of your own head, well, who knows where you’ll end up?

So learning to debate effectively can be and is an excellent tool for learning how to think more effectively. Contrary to the way we usually see debate, which is political, the goal is not really to “win”, unless you view understanding is winning, and I do.

I hope that many people who are “afraid” of participating in GD or of debates of any kind will overcome their fear, for exactly the reason previously stated: true debate is simply a very effective means of exercising your mind and improving the way you think, it’s not a fight you need to fear. It shouldn’t be, anyway, and perhaps this thread can go a ways to shifting our perception of debate and the way we engage in it.

Besides, what most people fear in participating in debate is being wrong. But what seems to be completely lost is the fact that it is only by being wrong that we can be right; no one is born fully formed, knowing everything, understanding everything. We have to challenge, question, debate, make mistakes, and be wrong so we can learn. If you don’t do these things, you will be wrong, and you’ll stay wrong.

I have learned throughout my life as a composer chiefly through my mistakes and pursuits of false assumptions, not by my exposure to founts of wisdom and knowledge.
– Igor Stravinsky
frequent mistakes are the stepping stones of genius.
– Elbert Hubbard

**The greatest mistake you can make in life is to be continually fearing you will make one.
**-- Elbert Hubbard

While one person hesitates because he feels inferior, the other is busy making mistakes and becoming superior.
– Henry C. Link

So let’s begin the debate of how to debate so we can all increase our understanding of everything, shall we?

What is a Logical Fallacy?
Some people, many, I suspect, are not familiar with the term or the idea of logical fallacies.

A logical fallacy is simply that: an error in logic. An error in reasoning. It’s not a factual error, because facts are facts, simply data.

What is logic? (I intend to link and borrow heavily from others who have said things better than I can, but as succinctly as possible):

“the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference.” Logic will let you analyze an argument or a piece of reasoning, and work out whether it is likely to be correct or not.

It’s also helpful to know what it is not:

First, logical reasoning is not an absolute law which governs the universe. Many times in the past, people have concluded that because something is logically impossible (given the science of the day), it must be impossible, period. It was also believed at one time that Euclidean geometry was a universal law; it is, after all, logically consistent. Again, we now know that the rules of Euclidean geometry are not universal.

What is a fallacy? Lots of things, but:

n logic, the term has a more specific meaning: a fallacy is a technical flaw which makes an argument unsound or invalid.

So, I’d like to start with what is probably the most well known of the logical fallacies, and the one that is the most misused and abused:

**ad hominem **
It is tossed around here on a nearly daily basis, and too often incorrectly.

It is very simple: an ad hominem argument is one which attacks the opponent, vs. the opponents argument with the specific purpose of undermining the argument. Like so:

[ul]
[li]Person A makes claim X.[/li][li]Person B makes an attack on person A.[/li][li]Therefore A’s claim is false.[/li][/ul]

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: “I believe that abortion is morally wrong.”
Dave: “Of course you would say that, you’re a priest.”
Bill: “What about the arguments I gave to support my position?”
Dave: “Those don’t count. Like I said, you’re a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can’t believe what you say.”

Now, don’t mistake me, I’m not saying ad hominem arguments aren’t being used around here…oh lord no. (they are directed at me with depressing regularity) Only that there is a big gap between genuine ad hominems and the accusation of ad hominem.

Now, in casual use some corners have decided that it’s acceptable to call any kind of attack “ad hominem”, but I don’t think it’s a positive to get on board with turning the language as mushy as possible, nor do I think it’s helpful to effective debate and effective thinking, so I reject that.

*Criticizing your opponent is not ad hominem unless it is a substitute for criticizing their arguments. *

Some recent threads and posts referencing ad hominem. This thread does so 9 times, including blasting the OP itself as pure ad hominem. Is it? No. It’s certainly attacking and abusive, but it is not ad hominem argument.

Nor is DavidM’s contention in this post. (But he doesn’t say it is, actually, just “pretty damn close”.)

Here, Blake accuses Dio of ad hominem. Without reading the whole thread, I can tell you that Blake did not mention creationism, therefore I think sufficient information is there to decide. I feel slightly less certain here simply because I know that Dio’s reference was to something entirely untrue and unrelated and complicates it. But in the end I come down on the side of yes, it was ad hominem: instead of addressing Blake’s actual argument (which had nothing to do with creationism) he dismissed him as unworthy of rebuttal on the false basis of his being a creationist.

If he were a creationist, would it have been ad hominem?

The poster in this post calls his own argument ad hom, and it isn’t, really, if you agree with his assessment of Oprah.

My old pal 'luc was wrong here.

I really don’t want to see this very meaningful term slide into nothing more than a fancy Latin way of describing an insult, and that’s how it’s being used more and more.

However, here I think Astro is right, and here Bricker at least describes it correctly.

And this exhange (jsut search for ad hominem on the page) is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Foolsguinea may have been insulting sleestak, but it wasn’t as a substitute for arguing against sleestak’s arguments.

Any input? Agree? Disagree?

Shall we do argumentum ad populum next?

[John_Mace]

I read your OP 3 times, and I don’t understand what you’re point is. Don’t take that as an ad hominem… I honestly don’t understand.

Can you give us your thesis in one sentence?

The closest I can come is that you seem to be saying that if an ad hominem is only part of the argument, then you can’t dismiss the whole argument. But I could be wrong.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Meh. Ad hominem arguments are used all the time in law, only they’re called impeachment. The credibility of parties in a debate may not be a legitimate topic of discussion, but the credibility of their sources certainly is.

[Implicit]

@Stoid

I really don’t want to see this very meaningful term slide into nothing more than a fancy Latin way of describing an insult, and that’s how it’s being used more and more.

“Apparently, you are too stupid to comprehend the difference between an insult and an ad hominem argument.”

Your plea reminded me of this ^ classic example of an ad hominem.
Certainly all insults are not ad hominems, but generally both affect the debate the same way, so it really doesn’t matter if it’s a fancy Latin insult or a low brow ‘yo mama’.

[Stoid]

@Implicit

Certainly all insults are not ad hominems, but generally both affect the debate the same way, so it really doesn’t matter if it’s a fancy Latin insult or a low brow ‘yo mama’.

I disagree, (and John? that’s why I started this thread…to sort this out.) I think it’s sloppy, with all due respect, to say that its all the same - it’s not.

Let’s start with your assertion that both insults and real adhom arguments “affect the debate” the same way; what way is that? Because you can say “yo mam” AND engage in true ad hominem argument. But if you say “yo mama” and then proceed to tear apart your opponent’s reasoning and citations, you are NOT engaging in ad hominem argument, and any accusations that you are are false and cheesy.

One of the many sites addressing these questions had the best thing to say about this:

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. …

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.

And this is where I think it’s a problem; I think we have to expose this for the bull that it is and not let people get away with painting any arguement that is less than flattering to themselves as nothing but ad hominem and therefore without value. If we do we are contributing to mushy thinking and mushy debate.

And I’m against mushy thinking and mushy debate.

[not_alice]

@Stoid

And I’m against mushy thinking and mushy debate.

It’s early December, and I can honestly say this is the funniest thing I have read all year.

[Stoid]

@not_alice

It’s early December, and I can honestly say this is the funniest thing I have read all year.

Now this is an interesting example to study…is it genuine ad hominem, or just a random drive-by snipe? Since it’s directed specifically at a simple statement and not an argument, it appears at first to be nothing more than a simple snipe.

But since it’s directed at a statement that relates directly to the subject, and it clearly means to imply that the speaker is unqualified to discuss the subject, I think it squeaks in under the wire and can be called a true, if weak and uncertain, ad hominem.

And another way to express the idea of weak and uncertain is “mushy”, so it serves as a dual example: a mushy ad hominem!

Good job, not_alice!

[TriPolar]

Stoid, I think you are just commenting on the various debating styles people have. Here in the SMDB there are a lot of people who would like to keep all arguments on a factual and logical basis. That is a great way of fighting ignorance in many circumstances, but not all, and certainly not the most entertaining way IMHO. There are commonly accepted styles of debate, as used in politics, academics, and courts, that do not follow that method. Ad hominem attacks, and their relatives, are used frequently, because people usually don’t enter into debate to learn, they debate competitively to win, often over questions which have no absolute answer. So expect to see any disparaging remark called ad hominem, even if it’s intent doesn’t fit the strict definition. And expect people to use the term ad hominem as an intimidation tactic to cow those who don’t know what it means.

Beyond that, this thread has a big problem. It is a thread in a debate board, but it’s very difficult to pick out the question being debated in your OP. So I have the same difficulty discerning what this debate is about as some of the others did.

[Fantome]

@plover.net

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.

In trying to explain what an ad hominem isn’t, the author mistakenly claims that someone mistakenly claiming someone made an ad hominem is itself an ad hominem. Sure, one could claim that claiming someone made an ad hominem is “an attack on the speaker”, but I think that’s a bit of a stretch.

[TriPolar]

@Fantome

In trying to explain what an ad hominem isn’t, the author mistakenly claims that someone mistakenly claiming someone made an ad hominem is itself an ad hominem. Sure, one could claim that claiming someone made an ad hominem is “an attack on the speaker”, but I think that’s a bit of a stretch.

Claiming that someone is making an ad hominem attack by claiming that they’ve made an ad hominem attack is a stretch is an ad hominem attack. Why don’t you attack the argument instead of attributing elasticity to the claimant? ;):rolleyes:

[not_alice]

@Stoid

Now this is an interesting example to study…is it genuine ad hominem, or just a random drive-by snipe?

And what fallacy would produce such a statement as that?

[Captain_Amazing]

People use ad hominem arguments because they work.

[Stoid]

@TriPolar

Beyond that, this thread has a big problem. It is a thread in a debate board, but it’s very difficult to pick out the question being debated in your OP. So I have the same difficulty discerning what this debate is about as some of the others did.

I tried to say in the OP why I chose GD. I did my best at the time I wrote it. I’ll try to think of a way to express it better.

@Captain_Amazing

People use ad hominem arguments because they work.

And in this case…works how? What does it succeed in doing? “Winning” the debate? By what definition?

And you remind me of all the people who have responded to my confusion about why people lie by telling me it works. It’s so depressing.

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@Stoid

Now this is an interesting example to study…is it genuine ad hominem, or just a random drive-by snipe?

Can’t be an ad hominem, since there are no arguments in the OP. Assertions aren’t arguments.

[not_alice]

@Stoid

I
And in this case…works how? What does it succeed in doing? “Winning” the debate? By what definition?

I wanted to address this concept of “winning a debate” here. I ight be one you are describing - my rhetoric is not always gentile, but I assure you I learn something and my ignorance is fought every time I read or write a post. That is all I am interested in, fighting ignorance.

If you haven’t found enlightenment in every post, that does not mean others whose rhetoric you don’t understand are “competing” in any sense whatsoever.

[elucidator]

@not_alice

…my rhetoric is not always gentile…

Oy!

[not_alice]

@elucidator

Oy!

LOL - typing while still drowsy - guilty! genteel.

No one ever mistook me for “gentile”

[Steophan]

The art of debate is rhetoric, not logic. Fallacy is perfectly acceptable if you are trying to win a debate. It is, however, useless if you are trying to educate yourself.

[Stoid]

Its both, actually, and more

[elucidator]

I’m a bit surprised the find this thread with me unaware, naturally, I expected my expertise and sterling example would provoke a clamor for my wise input. I can only surmise that the personal message system here at the SDMB broke down under the surge. I’ve noticed a similar effect on Valentines Day, when the overburdened mail carrier simply refuses to deliver.

While some may regard *ad hominem *remarks as deplorable and illogical, we are not Vulcans, a blessing bestowed by a wise and loving Goddess (even as I question the gender division between mushy-brained cat lovers and testosterone addled fanatics).

And an *ad hominem *remark can also be a medium for humor, and a good laugh is the most sanity promoting experience we have available. If you can get somebody to laugh at the absurdity of his opinion, you’ve already won, the rest is just mopping up pockets of resistance.

Myself, I just do it for the fun of it. The advance of universal enlightenment for all sentient beings is merely a bonus.