Ad Hominem: Difference between revisions

{{Useful Notes}}

 

See Idea Channel's explanation of the fallacy [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVFK8sVdJNg here].

{{quote|The [[Lurid Tales of Doom|Weekly World News]] says that [[George Washington]] was the first president of the United States.}}

 

 

{{examples}}

* When the rebuttal is insulting but valid: "You can't be a member of Mensa as you claim, because your IQ tests indicate that your IQ is 70".

* When an insult is present but is [http://community.livejournal.com/wrongworddammit/283991.html not used as a component of a logical argument.] Simply saying "You are an idiot" is not polite, but unless there's a "therefore" step to a conclusion, it is not a fallacy.

{{quote|"I studied law at Harvard, and I can see that this law is clearly unconstitutional."

"You studied law at Harvard, but you never got a degree." }}

{{quote|"You cited the Encyclopedia Britannica. A recent study found that Encyclopedia Britannica had 123 errors of fact -- in only 42 articles."}}

 

 

{{examples}}

* Most accusations of [[White Knighting]] are intended to discredit the accused by making it seem as if they have a self-interested reason to hold their stated position. While this ''may'' be true, it does not make said position any less valid.

----

== [[wikipedia:Tu quoque|Tu quoque]] ("You, too!") ==

::Another type of Ad Hominem, Tu Quoque refers to the attempt to deny an argument by asserting that the person presenting the argument either suffers from the same flaw (i.e. they do not practice what they preach) or has held an opposing view in the past. The fact that such a person is a [[Hypocrite]] if he criticizes others for bearing the same flaw he does does not invalidate or is not related to his line of reasoning in condemning that flaw.

Bob's new argument is not invalidated by any previous position he may have held. A logically sound counterargument would be to restate the reasoning behind Bob's previous position to him and ask why he changed his mind from that line of thinking.

 

* This is a favorite tactic of politicians who want to discredit an opponent; they usually call it "flip-flopping" or "waffling" and use it to imply that the opponent can't make up their mind.

** It is, however, a valid form of criticism when the topic is 'Can we actually trust this politician to follow through on their campaign promise, or will they change their mind once they get elected?' or similar. At that point, a review of the politician's past history re: consistency (or lack thereof) when it comes to advocating for political positions is clearly on-topic, for the same reason that a person's credit history might be ad hominem if brought up against them in a debate, but is most certainly ''not'' ad hominem when they are being evaluated for a loan application.

'''Atherton:''' When in Rome, dear boy... }}

* The ever-persistent "You criticize X, but you're using something provided by X!" argument.

* An example of Tu Quoque that has Real Life counterparts was created deliberately by the author Herman Wouk. In ''Winds of War/War and Remembrance'', the German officer Von Roon defends Germany in World War 2 on the grounds that Germany's enemies sometimes did brutal things that could be interpreted as war crimes, and as well that in the past earlier generations had been complicit in similar evil deeds. The fact that Germany's enemies can legitimately be criticized does not defend Germany's policies specifically nor prove that Germany was not the main guilty party for the war nor prove that whatever happened in the past, other nations were not reasonably justified in considering the subjugation of the Third Reich a self-defense imperative. In fact it proves nothing other then that [[Humans Are Flawed]] which we already knew.

 

* In court proceedings, it is normal for both parties to use ad hominem arguments against the persons the other party has called to present expert testimony. In this context, the tactic is valid because the judge and the jury, by virtue of not being experts in the field testimony is being provided on (for example, medical evidence), are not qualified to assess the matter on technical grounds and have to judge in virtue of [[Appeal to Authority|whose authority]] they find more persuasive.

 

 

{{reflist}}

[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]