Ad hominem

[mrg]

Ad hominem. To the person. A term used in logic with reference to a personal argument. Black's 6th

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate.

The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process.

There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit.

Arguments that (fallaciously) rely on the positive aspects of the person for the truth of the conclusion are discussed under appeal to authority.

Ad hominem is one of the best-known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks.

Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse.

An ad hominem fallacy consists of

asserting that someone's argument is wrong

and/or they are wrong to argue at all

purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative

about the person or those persons cited by them

rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself.

The implication is that the person's argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority.

Merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy.

It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments.

Validity:

Ad hominem is fallacious when applied to deduction,

and not the evidence (or premise) of an argument.

Credibility is the believability of a

statement,

action,

or source,

and the ability of the observer to believe that statement.

In public speaking, Aristotle considered the credibility of the speaker, his character, to be one of the forms of proof.

Contemporary social science research has generally found that there are several dimensions of credibility. Berlo and Lemert (1961) noted three:

1. competence,

Competence is a standardized requirement for an individual to properly perform a specific job.

It encompasses a combination of knowledge, skills and behavior utilised to improve performance.

More generally, competence is the state or quality of being adequately or well qualified, having the ability to perform a specific role.


2. trustworthiness

When considering whether someone, or an institution, is trustworthy or not we make assessments of them/it along three main dimensions:

(a) ability or competence (can they carry out the functions we expect of them effectively?),

(b) benevolence (do they have benign motives toward us, in their dealings with us?)

(c) integrity

(do they adhere ot a set of moral principles we find acceptable,

such as honesty,

fair treatment,

and a consistency between their 'talk' and their 'actions').

The person or entity is trustworthy if these three assessments exceed a threshold beyond which we feel we can have

"confident positive expectations"

about their future behavior, or conduct, toward us.

(i) 'Confidence' is important here to distinguish 'trust' from mere hopefulness, blind faith, or gullibility;

(ii) 'positive' is important to distinguish trust from distrust (which is "confident negative expectations"),

(iii) 'expectations' is important to distinguish trust from certainty

(there will always be an element of risk in deciding that someone is trustworthy,

which is why the degree of confidence is important).

It makes sense to base these assessments, therefore, on

tangible evidence such as

what happened during prior interactions with the trustee: were they

competent,

benevolent or benign, and

honest?

Sometimes evidence is not available, and so we must rely on alternative cues, such as reputational effects, and the presence of constraining mechanisms (regulations, sanctions, incentives, etc) that mean we can judge the person or entity to be trustworthy by proxy.

For example, we may have no direct evidence of the trustworthiness of the surgeon who operates on us at hospital, but we can expect, NOT know,

that (s)he is likely to be qualified (i.e. have ability),

has trained to become a doctor to improve people's health (i.e. be benevolent)

and that it is difficult, but not impossible, to be a dishonest or corrupt doctor (i.e. have integrity).

Sometimes, though rarely, not even these cues are available, in which case we are left with our own pre-disposition to trusting others.

This can range from an all-consuming paranoia about others' motives and disadain for their abilities, through to a near-unquesitoning faith in the goodness of strangers.

Somewhere between the two sit most people, making judgements based on evidence:

acting as "intuitive auditors" of people's conduct (both specific persons and strangers).


3. dynamism.

Dynamism is term of philosophy and science coined by Gottfried Leibniz (1646—1716) and developed into a full system of cosmology.

The Dynamism idea in metaphysical cosmology explains the material world in terms of active, pointlike forces, with no extension but with action at a distance.

Dynamism describes that what exists are simple elements, or for Leibniz, monads, and groups of elements which have only the essence of forces.

It was developed as a reaction against the passive view of matter in philisophical mechanism.

Interaction between elements takes place without contact, through modes or even harmonics of motion, yielding all phenomena in the Universe.

Premises discrediting the person can exist in valid arguments,

when the person being criticized is the sole source for a piece of evidence used in one of his arguments.

Ad hominem abusive

(also called argumentum ad personam)

usually and most notoriously involves insulting one's opponent,

but can also involve pointing out factual but damning character flaws or actions.

The reason that this is fallacious is that — usually, anyway — insults and even damaging facts simply do not undermine what logical support there might be for one's opponent's arguments or assertions;

argumentum ad personam short-circuits these potential arguments from logic in favor of a direct attack on the opponent's authority.

The argumentum ad hominem is a

1. genetic fallacy

The genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy

based on the irrelevant appraisal of something based on its origin.


It occurs when one attempts to reduce the significance of

an idea,

person,

practice,

or institution

merely to an account of its origin (genesis) or earlier form.


This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation,

typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.


It also fails to assess ideas on their merits.

Since the origin of a thing has no necessary relevance to its merit,

an argument that uses such a premise for accepting or rejecting a claim about the thing in question

should be regarded as flawed.


In terms of categorization, the genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance.

2. red herring,

Ignoratio elenchi

(also known as irrelevant conclusion)

is the logical fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid,

but which proves or supports a different proposition than the one it is purporting to prove or support.


"Ignoratio elenchi" can be roughly translated by

ignorance of the issue;

"elenchi" is from the Greek έλεγχος,

meaning an argument of disproof or refutation.


When this logical fallacy is used in an attempt to intentionally confuse or distract someone else, it is known as a red herring.

This phrase is thought to have originated from the use of smoked herring fish to distract dogs following a scent trail.

The herring's strong smell could obscure the real trail and lay a false one.

3. often (but not necessarily) an appeal to emotion.

Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy where a party relies on emotional issues

or presents an emotional case

for the purpose of establishing an argument.


An appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including:

Argumentum ad hominem includes poisoning the well.


Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy where

adverse information about someone is pre-emptively presented to an audience,

with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing

everything that person is about to say.


Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem.

This "argument" has the following form:

“Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in jail.”

In general usage, poisoning the well is the provision of any information that may produce a biased result.

Very informative and educational. It led me to go back and edit an inappropriate use of the term which I did not intend.

Thank you MRG...

Jerry

[mrg]

Very helpful for politicians and private trade guild Loyalist Tory Esquire BAR Association LICENSED TO PRACTICE AT LAW bastard attorneys (who, not surprisingly constitute the majority of "politicians), to know how to do.

[charlesa6]

Well said. Thanks.