# When is an ad hom not an ad hom? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 4, 2007, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-an-ad-hom-not-an-ad-hom/406759 "2007-06-04T22:33:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-an-ad-hom-not-an-ad-hom/406759/1 "2007-06-04T22:33:03Z")
From a debate I’m having with a friend: one of us maintains that ad homs are, by definition, _irrelevant_ attacks on a person while the other maintains that all attacks on the person rather than the argument are _ad hom_. I’ll use Bob Barr (R-GA [ret])in the following examples. The following is a clear ad hom: > [@](#): > > Statement: Since leaving office Bob Barr, though a rabid rightwing Republican, has made many comments critical of George Bush, particularly on privacy and civil rights issues and said the following direct quote in a speech _insert Barr’s speech about civil rights/privacy here_ > > Response: Bob Barr is a multimarried adulterer and deadbeat dad and a major homophobe. I wouldn’t listen to a thing he says. Okay, the above is clearly an ad hominem because Barr’s personal life has nothing to do with the validity either way of his views or statements or claims on civil rights/privacy. On this we’re all clear. Here’s a slightly murkier example though: > [@](#): > > Statement: Bob Barr says facts show that allowing gays to marry and to join the army openly would cause a major decline in family values and in military morale. > > Response: Bob Barr is a notorious homophobe who has often cited shoddy or flat-out-wrong “facts” to support his arguments against gays. In the above, I can see why it would be an ad hom to a degree, but it’s also relevant that Barr is a homophobe and has used bad information in arguing his cases about gays. Would the response be an ad hom? > [@](#): > > Statement: Bob Barr supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton and opposed gay marriage because he is militantly opposed to adultery and believes marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman and family is the bedrock of society. > > Response: Barr supported impeachment and fought gay marriage because he’s a pandering political opportunist. He’s been divorced twice, was a deadbeat dad, and admits to having been an adulterer even while preaching family values, plus he’s a homophobe who has knowingly recited incorrect information about gays in a probable attempt to pander to his base. His claims about his motives do not sound sincere as his lifestyle is hardly that of a man who truly believes in “conservative family values”. Okay, in this one Barr’s private life is HIGHLY RELEVANT to Barr’s self confessed views on the subject of marriage and family. Is this still an ad hom? Switching to a different famous American: > [@](#): > > Statement: Thomas Jefferson was possibly the greatest president America ever had due to his intellect, personality, vision, and writing ability. > > Response: Thomas Jefferson was a slaveowner who supported a lavish lifestyle from the miserable toil of his slaves. There is nothing great about him. Pretty clearly an ad hom. Now this one: > [@](#): > > Statement: Thomas Jefferson believed that keeping black Americans in slavery was a far greater kindness than it would be to free them as he did not believe they were intellectually capable of providing for themselves. > > Response: Jefferson was a financially troubled slaveowner who was unable to free his slaves. He was very probably rationalizing his position, and earlier he had said exactly the opposite. Is the response an ad hom? Suppose if it lacked the second sentence? Thanks for any opinions or advice. ---
**Author:** ![WoodenTaco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/45deac/32.png) [@WoodenTaco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WoodenTaco)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2007, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-an-ad-hom-not-an-ad-hom/406759/2 "2007-06-04T23:19:29Z")
Almost all of these are ad-homs. The point is that they don’t disprove the validity of the original statement. I’ll go through each of your examples, and maybe you’ll see what I mean: > [@](#): > > Bob Barr is a multimarried adulterer and deadbeat dad and a major homophobe. I wouldn’t listen to a thing he says. All three may or may not be factual statements, but they do nothing to disprove the truth of the original statement. Thus, they are all ad-homs. > [@](#): > > Bob Barr is a notorious homophobe who has often cited shoddy or flat-out-wrong “facts” to support his arguments against gays. The “notorious homophobe” part is certainly an ad-hom; regardless of its relevancy it doesn’t disprove the original statement. The second half, that he has frequently used false facts, is not an ad-hom. However, it still does not disprove Barr’s statements, it merely casts doubt on them. In order to disprove them, the responder would need to identify which of the “facts” he cited were false and why, specifically, they were false, not rely on broad generalizations. > [@](#): > > Barr supported impeachment and fought gay marriage because he’s a pandering political opportunist. He’s been divorced twice, was a deadbeat dad, and admits to having been an adulterer even while preaching family values, plus he’s a homophobe who has knowingly recited incorrect information about gays in a probable attempt to pander to his base. His claims about his motives do not sound sincere as his lifestyle is hardly that of a man who truly believes in “conservative family values”. These are all ad-homs in this context. The only thing that they prove are Barr’s hypocrisy, but that is not relevant to the truth-value of his statements. It can both be true that marriage is the bedrock of society and that Barr is an adulterer, for instance, and it can be both true that he’s a pandering political opportunist and that gay marriage undermines marriage as an institution. > [@](#): > > Thomas Jefferson was a slaveowner who supported a lavish lifestyle from the miserable toil of his slaves. There is nothing great about him. Perhaps not an ad-hom, interestingly, since the original statement was that “Thomas Jefferson was possibly the greatest president America ever had.” The fact that he was a slaveowner might disprove his greatness - in this case, since the original statement was about the personal character of someone, an attack on their personal character is not illogical. > [@](#): > > Statement: Thomas Jefferson believed that keeping black Americans in slavery was a far greater kindness than it would be to free them as he did not believe they were intellectually capable of providing for themselves. > Response: Jefferson was a financially troubled slaveowner who was unable to free his slaves. He was very probably rationalizing his position, and earlier he had said exactly the opposite. Neither the statement nor the response is an ad-hom, since they are about Jefferson’s intentions. They can be paraphrased this way: Statement: Thomas Jefferson kept slaves, which proves he was racist. Response: Thomas Jefferson kept slaves, but that doesn’t prove he was racist. Perfectly logical (although, it could use a warrant to the argument, such as a cite. But that’s a whole 'nother issue.) ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2007, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-an-ad-hom-not-an-ad-hom/406759/3 "2007-06-05T01:12:50Z")
[QUOTE=Sampiro] Okay, in this one Barr’s private life is HIGHLY RELEVANT to Barr’s self confessed views on the subject of marriage and family. Is this still an ad hom? [/quote] First of all, let me say that I know nothing about American politics, and have never heard of the person in question. It’s possible that I’m misunderstanding what the argument is about. But, if I’ve understood you, the man speaks of family values, but is hoimself an adulterer. Therefore people dismiss what he says, because he doesn’t pracise what he preaches. Is that a fair summary, or have I misunderstood? This is an example of [tu quoque](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque) which is indeed a special form of ad hom. > [@](#): > > Switching to a different famous American: > Statement: Thomas Jefferson believed that keeping black Americans in slavery was a far greater kindness than it would be to free them as he did not believe they were intellectually capable of providing for themselves. > > Response: Jefferson was a financially troubled slaveowner who was unable to free his slaves. He was very probably rationalizing his position, and earlier he had said exactly the opposite. [Ad Hominem circumstantial,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_circumstantial) dismissing someone’s argument because he personally benefits from it. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2007, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-an-ad-hom-not-an-ad-hom/406759/4 "2007-06-05T04:38:27Z")
I’m with WoodenTaco on this. [QUOTE=Sampiro] one of us maintains that ad homs are, by definition, _irrelevant_ attacks on a person while the other maintains that all attacks on the person rather than the argument are _ad hom_. [/QUOTE] By definition, they are attacks on the person, regardless of how relevant the person might be to the statement being discussed. (BTW, be careful to avoid attacking a fallacy of appeal to authority by committing ad hominem: “He’s a recognized expert!” “No, he doens’t know jack about it!”) > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Statement: Bob Barr supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton and opposed gay marriage because he is militantly opposed to adultery and believes marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman and family is the bedrock of society. > > > > Response: Barr supported impeachment and fought gay marriage because he’s a pandering political opportunist. He’s been divorced twice, was a deadbeat dad, and admits to having been an adulterer even while preaching family values, plus he’s a homophobe who has knowingly recited incorrect information about gays in a probable attempt to pander to his base. His claims about his motives do not sound sincere as his lifestyle is hardly that of a man who truly believes in “conservative family values”. > > Okay, in this one Barr’s private life is HIGHLY RELEVANT to Barr’s self confessed views on the subject of marriage and family. Is this still an ad hom? The response does nothing to attack the statement. If all we know about the argument is this statement, that the speaker is supporting the impeachment of Clinton and opposes gay marriage, then the response is ad hominem, since it does not directly address either of those issues. I would posit, however, that if you are using the statement to bolster the assertion that Bob Barr is the epitome of morality and should be held as a model for the rest of us, then the response effectively demolishes that assertion. But IANAP. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2007, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-an-ad-hom-not-an-ad-hom/406759/5 "2007-06-05T05:06:52Z")
One thing about _ad hominems_ which has kind of bugged me: Me: Do you have anything substantive to say on the global warming issue? Idiot: La la la I can’t hear you peepeepoopookaka! Me: Obviously you are a drooling moron with no coherent thought in your head. Am I not justified in making the final remark? Can I have a debate about the ability (or non-) of someone to adequately debate a topic, or discuss his mental faculties in general, or not? ---
**Author:** ![Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sophistry_and_Illusion)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2007, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-an-ad-hom-not-an-ad-hom/406759/6 "2007-06-05T05:43:50Z")
[QUOTE=CookingWithGas] BTW, be careful to avoid attacking a fallacy of appeal to authority by committing ad hominem: “He’s a recognized expert!” “No, he doens’t know jack about it!” [/QUOTE] Actually, I came in here to make the opposite point–that in attacking an argument from authority is precisely when an ad hominem is legitimate. The whole point of an argument from authority is that the person’s testimony is justification-conferring because of the person’s expert status; so if you can show that he is not in fact an expert, you have undermined his argument (although you haven’t shown his conclusion is false.) e.g.: “Dr. X says that evolution is not supported by the scientific evidence.” “But Dr. X is a known liar who cherry-picks evidence for creationism and repeatedly misrepresents the evidence for evolution. Besides, his PhD is in creative writing, not in any of the physical sciences.” ---
**Author:** ![panamajack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/47e85d/32.png) [@panamajack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panamajack)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2007, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-an-ad-hom-not-an-ad-hom/406759/7 "2007-06-05T16:29:14Z")
The third statement is not discussing whether marriage is in fact the bedrock of society, it’s whether Barr actually believes it to be so. His personal actions suggest that he either does not actually believe it to be so or he does not believe it applies to him. It’s not a complete argument, since his apparent hypocrisy does not necessarily negate his belief, but if it did, it would invalidate the claim that he voted based on that belief. ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2007, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-an-ad-hom-not-an-ad-hom/406759/8 "2007-06-05T16:40:32Z")
[QUOTE=John DiFool] Am I not justified in making the final remark? Can I have a debate about the ability (or non-) of someone to adequately debate a topic, or discuss his mental faculties in general, or not? [/QUOTE] You’re completely justified in making the remark; it appears to be factual. But your remark provides no evidence or support for either position on global warming–just on someone’s mental faculties. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2007, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-an-ad-hom-not-an-ad-hom/406759/9 "2007-06-05T17:17:59Z")
[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion] Actually, I came in here to make the opposite point–that in attacking an argument from authority is precisely when an ad hominem is legitimate. The whole point of an argument from authority is that the person’s testimony is justification-conferring because of the person’s expert status [/QUOTE] This might be true in a court of law but not in the court of deductive logic. Appeal to authority is a fallacy itself. The fact that an authority makes an assertion is not in itself proof of the assertion. Therefore it is unnecessary to attack their authority. Attacking their authority just trades one fallacy for another. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2007, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-an-ad-hom-not-an-ad-hom/406759/10 "2007-06-05T18:04:51Z")
Perhaps you can clear something up for me about the appeal to authority (and I’m being serious, not sarcastic). Does it matter whether the authority is speaking— well, as the Pope would call it, _ex cathedra_ or not? For example, I can totally understand why saying “Stephen Hawking is the world’s most brilliant physicist and he supports Candidate X in the next election” would be a fallacy (expertise in physics doesn’t mean he’s an expert on politics) But otoh if I were to say “Stephen Hawking is the world’s most brilliant physicist and he believes in the existence of black holes”- why would that be a logical fallacy? Astrophysics is something that Hawking absolutely is qualified to speak on and may well have written any book or paper that would supply evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2007, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-an-ad-hom-not-an-ad-hom/406759/11 "2007-06-05T18:14:53Z")
You should only cite authority to support your axioms, not to support your conclusions. If you want to prove to a doubter the existence of black holes, then saying “Stephen Hawking believes in them” is a weak argument that would not convince your opposition. You have to actually reproduce Hawkings maths to prove their existence. But if you want to discuss the formation of galaxies, advancing the idea that they form around black holes, then you can say “Black holes exist (see Hawking)” and reason from there to a conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2007, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-an-ad-hom-not-an-ad-hom/406759/12 "2007-06-05T18:24:06Z")
[QUOTE=Sampiro] why would that be a logical fallacy? Astrophysics is something that Hawking absolutely is qualified to speak on and may well have written any book or paper that would supply evidence. [/QUOTE] It is not unreasonable for all practical purposes, but it is a logical fallacy with regard to deductive reasoning. Logical fallacies are gaps in arguments that are intended to give proof, but which cannot logically serve as proof. The fact that an expert makes an assertion is not \*proof \* of the assertion, although it might reasonably convince most people in most circumstances that the assertion is probably true. That’s why the courts admit expert testimony. > [@Peter Morris](#): > > You have to actually reproduce Hawkings maths to prove their existence. Precisely. ---
**Author:** ![WoodenTaco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/45deac/32.png) [@WoodenTaco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WoodenTaco)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2007, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-an-ad-hom-not-an-ad-hom/406759/13 "2007-06-05T21:02:49Z")
[QUOTE=Sampiro] if I were to say “Stephen Hawking is the world’s most brilliant physicist and he believes in the existence of black holes”- why would that be a logical fallacy? Astrophysics is something that Hawking absolutely is qualified to speak on and may well have written any book or paper that would supply evidence. [/QUOTE] Rigorous logic dealing with fallacies and whatnot is based on a small list of possibilities. There are things that _must_ be true, things that _might_ be true, and things that _must not_ be true. Truly logical statements will identify things as one of those three. So, Hawking’s math might prove that black holes _must_ exist. Thus, citing this math as proof would be quite logical. However, citing Hawking because he is an expert is not proof, because it doesn’t prove that black holes _must_ exist. One can conceive of the possibility that an expert on astrophysics could be incorrect on the existence of black holes. His status as an expert does not inherently make his statements factually 100% true. It certainly lends them rhetorical credibility, but this is not the same as truth which is all that formal logic is concerned with. ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2007, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-an-ad-hom-not-an-ad-hom/406759/14 "2007-06-05T22:00:25Z")
[QUOTE=CookingWithGas] Logical fallacies are gaps in arguments that are intended to give proof, but which cannot logically serve as proof. The fact that an expert makes an assertion is not \*proof \* of the assertion, although it might reasonably convince most people in most circumstances that the assertion is probably true. That’s why the courts admit expert testimony. [/QUOTE] This is a key point. I’ve found most folks are hung up on the term “fallacy”, which they see strictly as a mistake of logic. Rather, many formal fallacies involve using the structure of a genuine argumentative form incorrectly. There was a recent thread which talked about this distinction with regard to the [slippery slope fallacy](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=415232): Although the “slippery slope argument” is a legitimate form of debate, the associated fallacy comes from using the form by itself to gloss over parts of the argument that need legitimate proof. _Ad Hominem_ is a similar type of formal fallacy based on a legitimate form of argument (though with this particular fallacy we also have the false baggage that _ad hominem_ = “personal attack”). More correctly, an _ad hominem_ argument is one in which the opponent’s ability to argue correctly is discredited as a means to discredit his/her argument. This is a legitimate tactic _if the link between the opponent and the argument can be sufficiently supported_. For example, if I claim my son is incredibly smart, you can legitimately challenge that claim with an _ad hominem_ argument that I am his father, a fact that most of us would agree colors my judgment. If, however, you challenge my assertion “US government policy isn’t taking global warming seriously” by suggesting that I’m too much of an expert in French culture to know what’s going on in the US, then you’re committing the _ad hominem_ fallacy. Notice that the two examples are similar, but in the second the link between “knowledge of US policy” and “expert in French culture” is not clear; the second example has the form of a legitimate argument, but is missing a necessary component. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2007, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-an-ad-hom-not-an-ad-hom/406759/15 "2007-06-05T22:32:00Z")
CJJ\*, thanks for your post. You say: [QUOTE=CJJ\*] More correctly, an _ad hominem_ argument is one in which the opponent’s ability to argue correctly is discredited as a means to discredit his/her argument. This is a legitimate tactic _if the link between the opponent and the argument can be sufficiently supported_. For example, if I claim my son is incredibly smart, you can legitimately challenge that claim with an _ad hominem_ argument that I am his father, a fact that most of us would agree colors my judgment. … [/QUOTE] I would respectfully disagree. Presumably most fathers would say that their sons are smart. But the mere claim by someone that “X is smart” is just that, a claim. If you want to disprove that claim, it is meaningless to look at the motives of the person making the claim. It could be that your son is actually smart, regardless of who makes the claim. The only way to disprove the claim is to show that the son is not smart, just as the only way to prove it is to show that the son is smart. A claim exists on its own, \*independent of who made it. \* For example, should we believe a scientist’s claim because he is a scientist? By no means, there’s been horrendous scientific errors, mistaken claims, and even scientific fraud. If anyone has a vested interest in a claim, it’s the person who made it, regardless of whether it’s a father talking about his son, or a scientist talking about his pet theory. Indeed, this is why evidence of past crimes is not allowed in a court of law. Yes, a man might have stolen before … but that does not mean he stole in this particular instance. When one is trying to determine the truth of a claim, whether the claim was made by a physician, a priest, or a pervert means nothing. The claim is either true, or it is not. All the rest is just window dressing. Best to all, w. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-an-ad-hom-not-an-ad-hom/406759/16 "2007-06-06T03:28:09Z")
According to Jay Heinrichs in [Thank You For Arguing](http://www.amazon.com/Thank-You-Arguing-Aristotle-Persuasion/dp/0307341445) in a debate an _ad hominem_ is sometimes in decorum. ---
**Author:** ![Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sophistry_and_Illusion)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-an-ad-hom-not-an-ad-hom/406759/17 "2007-06-06T03:44:15Z")
[QUOTE=CookingWithGas] This might be true in a court of law but not in the court of deductive logic. Appeal to authority is a fallacy itself. The fact that an authority makes an assertion is not in itself proof of the assertion. Therefore it is unnecessary to attack their authority. Attacking their authority just trades one fallacy for another. [/QUOTE] This is all true, but very little of our reasoning regarding matters of fact is deductive. And in fact when it comes to our knowledge of the world, much (perhaps most) of our knowledge is based on the testimony of others. So authority, and the legitimacy thereof, looms large. But yeah, if \*\*Sampiro \*\* was asking about deductive logic, then ad hominem is always fallacious. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-an-ad-hom-not-an-ad-hom/406759/18 "2007-06-06T04:12:08Z")
[QUOTE=intention] CJJ\*, thanks for your post. You say:I would respectfully disagree. Presumably most fathers would say that their sons are smart. But the mere claim by someone that “X is smart” is just that, a claim. If you want to **disprove** that claim, [/quote] (Bolding mine.) But, to reiterate **CJJ** \*'s point (I think,) the important thing to notice is that when someone says “But you’re the kid’s dad!” they’re not trying to _disprove_ the claim. Rather, their trying to cast what might be called “reasonable doubt” on the claim. It would be a formal or logical fallacy if it was intended as an argument disproving the claim “My son is smart,” but if it was not intended to disprove the claim, then no (formal or logical) fallacy was committed. -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-an-ad-hom-not-an-ad-hom/406759/19 "2007-06-06T06:53:39Z")
Frylock, thanks for the explanation. I’m not sure I’m clear on the difference between attempting to disprove something and casting doubt on something, but it kinda makes sense. w. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-an-ad-hom-not-an-ad-hom/406759/20 "2007-06-06T07:52:52Z")
[QUOTE=intention] Frylock, thanks for the explanation. I’m not sure I’m clear on the difference between attempting to disprove something and casting doubt on something, but it kinda makes sense. w. [/QUOTE] The way I was using the phrases: Attempting to disprove something is attempting to show it can’t possibly be true. Attempting to cast doubt on something is attempting to show that it probably isn’t true. -FrL- [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-an-ad-hom-not-an-ad-hom/406759.md?page=2)