Ad hominem - “argument against the man”
Basically, ad hominem is the logical fallacy in which a persons claims are dismissed as false or incorrect because there is something objectionable about the person making the claims.
an example of a simple, and all-too-common ad hominem argument:
“Athiesm is bad.”
“Stalin was an athiest.”
“Therefore, Stalin is bad.”
Now, isn’t that a ridiculously unfair judgement? The example above illustrates a humans natural inclination toward bias. Bob might hold the belief that athiesm is bad, but if he applies that bias toward another persons claims, he is commiting a logical fallacy. It’s inaccurate to claim that a person is bad if they are athiest.
I hate jews with a fiery passion. Iran is a nice place to live.
Of course, I don’t hate jews, but if I did, and if you knew that I did, and if you found that objectionable, how would you interpret my claim that Iran is a nice place to live?
An ad hominem argument might be that Iran is not a nice place to live, because a Jew-hater claimed that. To take that further, one might assume that my claim is indicative of sympathy for Mamoud Ahmaddinejad.
This fallacy exists all over the place. But lets not assume that ad hominem should be completely avoided in all cases. Certainly, in intellectual discourse, it needs to be avoided, but in legal discourse, it’s useful. When a criminal suspect makes a claim, the reliability of that claim is automatically disputed (guilty until proven innocent? kind of) , and legal experts need to work to examine the claim and find evidence of it before judging it’s accuracy.
Next time a political debate happens, keep this fallacy in mind. Watch Bill Orielly’s or Keith Olbermann’s show, with this fallacy in mind. Find issues of high contention (abortion, scientology, athiesm vs. creationism, terrorism) and examine the popular arguments on both sides. You’ll probably want to face-palm after an in depth look.
I’ve noticed, in extreme cases, people will literally begin to associate a persons thirst for knowledge as an elitist trait. Or people will assume that if anyone doubts a certain claim or desires to be reasonable with a certain claim, they are stupid, or lost, or sinful, or wrong.
Some more information on ad hominem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
June 19th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
The Stalin syllogism you first used also commits the fallacy of division. It applies attributes of the whole to its parts.
Consider: If atheism is bad, and Stalin was an atheist, we have thus far no grounds for claiming that Stalin was bad. Atheism is a religion, Stalin was a person. After all, atheists could be great people, tricked into following a bad religion.
June 19th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
So, the conclusion is indeed insulting, but Stalin can rest easy for now because the argument is fallacious to begin with.
June 21st, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Legally speaking he is absolutely right. Daily in criminal law trials, hearing and preliminary conferences the ad hom (as we in the legal profession shorten it for draft briefs) it plays a very important part in swaying the jury to your point; and carry quite a bit of weight when utilized accurately. It can basically win or lose the case. And some laypeople don’t even realize that.
And to comment against djohn, how can atheist be “great people” by what measure? The core of the atheist society is selfishness.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Neat, I didn’t know there was an atheist society.
June 24th, 2009 at 12:03 am
This is exactly why philosophy is so important and should be studied. People will often embrace the ignorance of society and never search for any truth in their own lives. We have to change the way our future generations think and behave, and philosophy is the key. There are so many that believe that atheists are bad people because their own philosophy is based on flawed ideals. Change those ideals and maybe we can change the world.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:00 am
“their own philosophy is based on flawed ideals.”
Evidence before a claim is the creed of many athiests, but their world view varies between individuals. It’s unfair to say that their philosophy in based on flawed ideals. Consider the views of Neil Degrasse Tyson, one of my favourite researchers:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=Neil+deGrasse+Tyson+&aq=f
June 24th, 2009 at 10:15 am
when your ideas are not complete, meaning they are based on ignorance, than that is a flawed ideal. When you ask someone why being an athiest is bad and they don’t have a defined intelligent answer, that person is ignorant to his own belief. That is why I said that their philosophy is based on flaws.
June 24th, 2009 at 10:28 am
so you’re referring to instances when someone criticizes another’s claims/beliefs?
I’m in the process of researching argument theory and informal logic in Artificial Intelligence systems. I’m writing a paper on it for school (Artificial Intelligence and argument theory go together like Lego bricks).