I would like in particular to talk about how you don’t understand what an argumentum ad populum is. You’re the one who put a comment about it in your OP. I’m trying to explain to you what it means.
What is this thread for if you’re just going to deflect and deny when a mistake is pointed out to you?
It appears to be about Stoid. Just like the other thread.
No I didn’t, as explained in this thread and that one.
Any further discussion requires discussion of my position, which is in the other thread.
There, or nowhere.
I am discussing the OP of this thread. The OP isn’t open for debate?
No, you aren’t. The quote you gave came from the other thread. The topic of this thread is ad hominem. Neither of which is relevant to this thread.
What you are doing is another time honored Dope tradition of jumping on a part of the OP that is completely irrelevant to the actual topic. Whether your motives are to distract from the actual argument, or to attack Stoid for saying something you don’t like, I don’t know. I do know that, if you have a personal problem with Stoid or what she’s said about you, you can always open a Pit thread, where she can actually respond to you, rather than attempting to hijack this thread.
I also will point out my own ad hominem: because of your behavior in this thread, I will not be paying a bit of attention to your argument that you are being mischaracterized. Not that I even remember what it is you were supposed to have done–it honestly isn’t that important to the thread.
I would disagree. I was just offering an example from the other thread because it was on point about something she wrote in this very thread. But I have no intention of derailing the thread any further, as it happens.
Rhetoric is a great thing to discuss in GD, IMHO. However, I admit I didn’t entirely follow the OP.
Furthermore, certain ad hominem arguments have inductive validity. It is sensible for a nonspecialist to weigh the opinions of experts heavier than bozos. And distinguishing between the 2 sorts of opinion types involves some evaluation of their bearers.
That said, ad hominem is at best a shortcut. It makes no sense in scientific discourse, which is suppose to be a discussion among equals. Bring what knowledge you have to the table and if your mastery is less than comprehensive, try listening. In less formal venues, it should be considered suggestive evidence at most, assuming that none of the participants have disgraced themselves through misrepresentation without apology or other rhetorical sins. In such cases it is permissible to say, “Come back when you have a real argument.”
Re: The OP:
Logic can be defined as the rules of valid inference. It is not an absolute guide to truth insofar as faulty assumptions will lead to logical but often faulty conclusions.
Logical fallacies are considered an aspect of informal logic.
Notwithstanding the above, it is helpful to identify ad hominem arguments.
There’s a tendency among some posters to respond to the weakest arguments and ignore the stronger ones. I prefer to do the reverse. But that’s a separate and more general issue than ad homineminity.
I agree with you Stoid, but ad hominem is often up to interpretation. Sometimes it is difficult to “prove” a use of real ad hominem, even though common sense says it is. For example in:
* Person A makes claim X.
* Person B makes an attack on person A.
* Therefore A's claim is false.
Often person B doesn’t explicitly say that the attack on person A implies A’s claim is false. The “therefore your claim is false” part can be very much up to interpretation. Perhaps B’s “attack” on A is meant more as a sincere observational interjection, meant to perhaps open person A’s eyes to some aspect of his self that may be biasing his argument. There can be some subtly here in the interpretation.
Additionally, as I think you know, ad hominem is not always fallacious. If someone makes an ad hominem argument that is not fallacious, can it still be called out as ad hominem?
We are talking probabilities here, and the relative weight to be accorded to evidence. It is not a fallacy to accord higher weight to expert evidence provided by an unbiased expert, all things being otherwise equal. Introducing evidence of bias is just that - evidence - and the presumption that bias = prejudice can of course be rebutted.
For example:
A. Socrates says his research proves X brand toothpaste is better than Y brand.
B. Socrates was paid to research by the maker of X brand. Therefore, his conclusions should be given lesser or no weight.
To which the following response is incorrect:
A. The statement by B is a logical fallacy, as it speaks to Socrates as a person and not to the evidence. Therefore, it may be discounted.
But the following response is a good counter:
A. In his statement, B overlooks the fact that Socrates has previously worked for many in the industry, the maker of Y brand included. The fact that he was paid by the maker of X brand is an indication of his prominance as a researcher, not of his bias. His unquestioned integrity is not something he would be willing to risk for one client.
…
Naturally, for scientific purposes, repeated independent investigation is to be preferred - but that option is not always available in a particular debate.
Reinforcing Malthus’ point, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s entry on informal logic has a section on ad hominem:
The article details aspects of this issue that had not occurred to me. Classically, ad hominem is an attack on the arguer, rather than the argument. It is thus intended to silence the opposition, rather than refute them. That is inappropriate if the matter is to be investigated in detail.
Aristotle apparently thought that evaluating the ethos of the arguer was an aspect of determining the persuasiveness of the argument. But then again, those who constantly present ad hominem attacks may undermine their own ethos under certain circumstances.
Indeed, the use of the non-fallacious ad-hom can rebound against the user in a number of ways. Obviously, over-use is one. Another is that it may serve to re-enforce the credentials of the person against whom it is used, because they are forced to describe those credentials, in detail, in response to the ad hom; and evidence elicited this way will not appear to be self-serving, as it is invited by the opposition.
In short, it ought only to be used where the user already knows or strongly suspects in advanced that it can’t convincingly be countered; its effective use ought to be relatively uncommon.
I’m not sure about the latter. By that I mean that it’s generally best to ignore certain categories of claim by lobbyists, paid PR employees and paid advertisements. OTOH, this is sufficiently obvious such that it can be done with a light touch. The trickier cases involve bona fide scientists who are receive grant money from interested parties.
Wrong link, you want this one. I probably wrote that shortly before I officially gave up on democracy, when I was still arguing for a social-democratic North America. Of course, now I merely want a new god-emperor to come and conquer the masses too stupid to rule themselves, & who cares if they even have medical care then?
I miss the old social-democratic foolsguinea, but really there wasn’t any point. [del]Human beings are nothing but noisome creatures to be overcome, too stupid to govern themselves, too dangerous to be set free.[/del] Actually, maybe that’s just Anglos of northen European descent.
Thanks for the nod anyway.