"An ad hominem fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone attacks the person making an argument, rather than the argument itself. The term comes from the Latin phrase ad hominem, which means "to the person." (AI Overview)
The error behind this fallacy is an enthymeme* which says that a bad character or ethos cannot possibly speak the truth or give logically sound arguments. The ad hominem argument (I use the term 'argument' loosely) or persuasive tactic is unreliable as a proof for it is wrongly inferred that only a good and honest character can state a truth. But, even the Devil, the greatest of liars, sometimes speaks the truth. Examples of this is when he tempted Christ in the wilderness. He said Jesus could turn the stones into bread as the Son of God. That was true. He said that if Christ fell off a cliff that the angels would bare him up. That also was true. Not only that, the demons as little devils also have spoken the truth. On one occasion they said to Jesus - "we know who you are - the holy one of God." (See Luke 4: 33-37; Mark 1: 23-24) An ad hominem is fallacious because an argument’s soundness has little to no relation to the character of the person making the argument. Kind, sweet people can be wrong, and mean, vicious people can be right.
(* an enthymeme is an argument in which one premise is not explicitly stated, as in a syllogism)
There are several types of ad hominem fallacies, including:
Tu quoque
A type of ad hominem fallacy that criticizes the person making an argument by accusing them of hypocrisy
Circumstantial ad hominem
Also known as an appeal to motive, this fallacy argues that a person's circumstances, like their job or political affiliation, bias their argument
Guilt by association
This fallacy attempts to discredit a person's ideas by associating them with someone else who has similar views
Poisoning the well
This fallacy aims to discredit an opponent without addressing the substance of their argument
Ad feminam
This fallacy is a type of abusive ad hominem that attacks a person's gender
I recall an instance when I was in my college class to study the "Philosophy of Religion." Most of this small class were preachers in training. I think I said in regard to one point discussed about the Trinity - "oh that is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe" and all at once I realized what I had done and so did the teacher and other pupils. I had used an ad hominem argument.
We are guilty of ad hominem fallacies when we say things like this:
1) "You can't believe anything he says for he is such a hypocrite"
2) "Your a man (or woman) and so you cannot possibly know what I mean"
3) "He's an idiot, so you can't believe anything he says"
4) "He can't be right for he was an associate of Putin"
5) "He cannot be right in what he says because he is biased"
6) "You can ignore what he says because he is not on our side"
I do not want to make detailed comments about the various kinds of Ad Hominem fallacies above, except that I would like to say a few things about what is called poisoning the well.
Poisoning The Well
""Poisoning the well" is a rhetorical tactic that involves presenting negative information about a person or idea before they can be heard. The goal is to discredit or ridicule the person or idea." (AI)
"A "poisoning the well" fallacy is a logical fallacy where someone tries to discredit an opponent's argument by preemptively presenting negative information about them to the audience, essentially "contaminating" their credibility before they even get a chance to speak, similar to the idea of poisoning a water well to make it unusable for others; it's a form of ad hominem attack." (Ibid)
We see this type of fallacious argumentation by politicians who will say all kinds of negative things about their opponents in order to prejudice the audience against anything their opponents might say. This was certainly true in the last election when president Trump was called all sorts of names and libelous slanders. It was done so that people would be less inclined to listen to his policies and judge them fairly and honestly and by reason alone. People who poison the well are seeking to paint their opponents in the worst light. It is a kind of deception. It is also a kind of appeal to emotion.
Over the past sixteen years I have had many Hardshell Baptists visit this blog and my other blog, the Baptist Gadfly, and I must say that in nearly every case the Hardshells would take pot shots at my character, motive, and credibility. Only one of them, however, attempted to reply to my logos argumentation, to my reasoning and proofs. That is sad.
"An ad hominem fallacy is a type of fallacy of relevance, meaning the argument is irrelevant to the discussion.
It's a rhetorical strategy that appeals to emotions and prejudices instead of facts.
It's also known as a personal attack or name-calling." (AI Overview)
We may therefore say that in this respect some types of ad hominem arguments are examples of the "red herring" fallacy. We will discuss it later, but we simply will now say that it is designed to distract attention away from the argument or idea by bringing in other unrelated ideas and things. In other words "it is beside the point" to say something negative about the speaker (persuader) to persuade people to not accept the argumentation of the speaker, or to ignore the argumentation by talking about something else (changing the subject). In political debate today this is called "pivoting." It is a way to "dodge" the argumentation and the evidence. Those who do so should be recognized as Sophists, people who only want to win a debate and not to find the truth. Ad hominem attacks are more examples of attacking the messenger rather than the message.
Though ad hominem argumentation is invalid and against sound logic and reasoning, that is not to say that a speaker's character and credibility are totally irrelevant. A good character and reputation and expertise in the thing being argued, or the idea being promoted or affirmed, can add weight to the testimony or to the logical argument and discourse. It can increase the possibility that the arguments presented by the speaker are not deceitful or a con job. Especially is this true of opinions that cannot be proven to be true, being then a matter of speculation. In such things an educated opinion is esteemed of greater value than that of an uneducated one. Wrote one good source on this point (See here - emphasis mine):
"When is an ad hominem argument valid?
An ad hominem argument is not always fallacious. Because ad hominem arguments have been associated with dirty tricks and name-calling, they are usually considered as hits below the belt that do not advance a healthy debate.
However, an ad hominem argument can sometimes be used as a legitimate rhetorical strategy. When the claims made about a person’s character are relevant to the discussion or the conclusions being drawn, and they are properly justified, the ad hominem argument is valid."
Ad hominem arguments can take various forms. In some cases, they are almost always a fallacy, while in other cases they can be valid depending on how they are used.
Also, we must realize that saying something negative about a speaker's life or character is not itself an ad hominem argument for it is not an argument at all. Jesus and the bible writers often did this in regard to truly wretched and depraved people. It is only when we say an argument is invalid or fallacious because the one making it is bad are we arguing wrongfully.
If we look into the scriptures we can see all kinds of examples where ad hominem attacks were made against Christ and his apostles, along with the prophets of old.
Again, on this question I got these responses from my search in Google and from "AI Overview."
"Ad hominem" attacks against Jesus Christ and the apostles often involved questioning their character, background, or motivations, dismissing their teachings by claiming they were uneducated, delusional, or even mentally unstable, rather than addressing the substance of their message; examples include calling Jesus a "deceiver," "madman," or "demon-possessed," or accusing the apostles of being illiterate fishermen who were simply trying to gain power or followers by fabricating stories about Jesus."
"In the Gospels, some Pharisees and religious leaders often used ad hominem attacks against Jesus, accusing him of being a "glutton" or "drunkard" (Luke 7:34), or claiming he was in league with the devil (John 8:48)."
In the next chapter we will look at some other logical fallacies.
No comments:
Post a Comment