An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. In Logic, an argument is a Set of one or more Declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the Premises along Latin ( lingua Latīna, laˈtiːna is an Italic language, historically spoken in Latium and Ancient Rome. The term person is used in Common sense to mean an individual Human being. Evidence in its broadest sense includes anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the Truth of an assertion The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as acting or arguing in accordance with the view that he is arguing against.

Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a logical inference is independent of the person making the inference. A syllogism, or logical appeal, (συλλογισμός &mdash "conclusion" "inference" (usually the categorical syllogism) is a kind of The meaning of the word truth extends from Honesty, Good faith, and Sincerity in general to agreement with Fact or Reality However, ad hominem arguments are rarely presented as formal syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the domain of informal logic and the theory of evidence. Informal logic (or occasionally non-formal logic) is the study of arguments as presented in ordinary language as contrasted with the presentations of arguments in ^[1] The theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. A witness is someone who has firsthand knowledge about a Crime or dramatic event through their Senses (e An expert witness is a Witness, who by virtue of Education, Training, Skill, or Experience, is believed to have Knowledge Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence.

Argumentum ad hominem is the inverse of argumentum ad verecundiam, in which the arguer bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in Logic called a fallacy Hence, while an ad hominem argument may make an assertion less compelling, by showing that the person making the assertion does not have the authority, knowledge or position they claim, or has made mistaken assertions on similar topics in the past, it cannot provide an infallible counterargument.

An ad hominem fallacy is a genetic fallacy and red herring, and is most often (but not always) an appeal to emotion. The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis) is the Informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be Appeal to emotion is a Fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions rather than valid logic to win an argument

It does not include arguments posed by a person which contradict the person's actions, for example:

If person X argues that touching water will cause death, and then person X touches water, then it is reasonable to assume that what person X said is incorrect and that they knew it to be incorrect at the time of making the statement.

Contents 1 Ad hominem as formal fallacy 2 Usage 2.1 In logic 2.2 Colloquially 3 Types of ad hominems 3.1 Ad hominem abusive 3.2 Ad hominem circumstantial 3.3 Ad hominem tu quoque 3.4 Guilt by association 4 Inverse ad hominem 5 See also 6 References 7 Sources 8 Further reading 9 External links

Ad hominem as formal fallacy

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

Person A makes claim X

There is something objectionable about Person A

Therefore claim X is false

Ad hominem is one of the best known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. In philosophy, a formal fallacy or a logical fallacy is a pattern of reasoning which is always wrong Logic is the study of the principles of valid demonstration and Inference. Critical thinking consists of mental processes of discernment, Analysis and Evaluation. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse (see also Argument from fallacy). The argument from fallacy, also known as argumentum ad logicam or fallacy fallacy, is a Logical fallacy which assumes that if an Argument is As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often because of the natural inclination of the human brain to recognize patterns. Rhetoric has had many definitions no simple definition can do it justice Pattern recognition involves identification of faces objects words melodies etc

The first premise is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. In Discourse and Logic, a premise is a claim that is a reason (or element of a set of reasons for or objection against some other claim The contention is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. A conclusion is a Proposition, which is arrived at after the consideration of Evidence, Arguments or Premises Logic There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. The fallacy does not represent a valid form of reasoning because even if you accept both co-premises, that does not guarantee the truthfulness of the contention. The term validity (also called logical truth, analytic truth, or necessary truth) as it occurs in Logic refers generally to a property of This can also be thought of as the argument having an un-stated co-premise. A co-premise is a Premise in Reasoning and Informal logic which is not the main supporting reason for a contention or a lemma, but

In this example, the un-stated co-premise "everything that A claims is false" has been included, and the argument is therefore now a valid one. However in the ad hominem fallacy the un-stated co-premise is always false, thereby maintaining the fallacy. In Informal logic, an inference objection is an objection to an argument based not on any of its stated premises but rather on the relationship between Premise Note that this does not imply that the contention "eugenics is a bad idea" is false, merely un-supported by the pattern of reasoning below it.

Usage

In logic

An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him 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 (though it is not usually regarded as acceptable). 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. In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. However, this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are in agreement that this use is incorrect. ^[2]

Example:

"You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well. "

This argument would generally be accepted as reasonable, as regards personal evidence, on the premise that criminals are likely to lie to protect each other. On the other hand, it is a valid example of ad hominem if the person making the claim is doing so on the basis of evidence independent of their own credibility.

In general, ad hominem criticism of evidence cannot prove the negative of the proposition being claimed:

Example:

"Paula says the umpire made the correct call, but this can't be true, because Paula was doing more important things than watching the game. "

Assuming the premise is correct, Paula's evidence is valueless, but the umpire may nonetheless have made the right call.

Example A reductio ad Hitlerum argument can be seen as a special case of an ad hominem argument, since these arguments are attacking something supposedly said or supported by Adolf Hitler, who is usually considered to have been an evil person. Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, or reductio (or argumentum) ad Nazium Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! Please understand that this article is frequently vandalized and vandalism is reverted immediately

Colloquially

In common language, any personal attack, regardless of whether it is part of an argument, is often referred to as ad hominem. ^[3]

Types of ad hominems

Three traditionally identified varieties are ad hominem abusive (or ad personam), ad hominem circumstantial, and ad hominem tu quoque.

Ad hominem abusive

Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensibly damning character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. An insult (also called putdown) is an expression statement or behavior that is considered degrading This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions. This tactic is frequently employed as a propaganda tool among politicians who are attempting to influence the voter base in their favor through an appeal to emotion rather than by logical means, especially when their own position is logically weaker than their opponent's. Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people A politician (from Greek " Polis " is an individual who is involved in influencing public decision making through the influence of Politics or a person Appeal to emotion is a Fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions rather than valid logic to win an argument

Examples:

• "You can't believe Jack when he says there is a God because he doesn't even have a job. God is the principal or sole Deity in Religions and other belief systems that worship one deity. "
• "Charles Manson wrote this song, so it must be unlistenable".
• "Candidate Jane Jones' proposal X is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003. "

Ad hominem circumstantial

Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious in syllogistic logic is that pointing out that one's opponent is disposed to make a certain argument does not make the argument, from a logical point of view, any less credible; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source). The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context

On the other hand, where the person taking a position seeks to convince us by a claim of authority, or personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero. ^[4]

Examples:

• "Tobacco company representatives should not be believed when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests. "

• "He's physically addicted to nicotine. Of course he defends smoking!”

• "What do you know about politics? You're too young to vote!"

Mandy Rice-Davies's famous testimony, during the Profumo Affair, "Well, he would [say that], wouldn't he?", is an example of a valid circumstantial argument. Mandy Rice-Davies (born 21 October, 1944) is famous mainly for her minor role in the Profumo affair which discredited the Conservative government The Profumo Affair was a political scandal from 1963 in the United Kingdom that is named after the then Secretary of State for War, John Profumo Her point is that since a man in a prominent position, accused of an affair with a callgirl, would deny the claim whether it was true or false, his denial carries no evidential weight.

Ad hominem tu quoque

Main article: tu quoque

Ad hominem tu quoque refers to a claim that the person making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. Tu quoque ( IPA: /tu ˈkwoʊkwɛ/ Latin for "You too" or "You also" is a Latin term used to mean an accusation of Tu quoque ( IPA: /tu ˈkwoʊkwɛ/ Latin for "You too" or "You also" is a Latin term used to mean an accusation of In particular, if person A criticises the actions of person B, a tu quoque response is that A has acted in the same way.

Guilt by association

Main article: Association fallacy

Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument. An association fallacy is an inductive Formal fallacy of the type Hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one

This form of the argument is as follows:

Person A makes claim P.

Group B also make claim P.

Therefore, person A is a member of group B.

Example:

"You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, therefore you are a communist"

This fallacy can also take another form:

Person A makes claim P. Communism is a Socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless Society based

Group B make claims P and Q

Therefore, Person A makes claim Q.

Examples:

"You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, and they believe in revolution. Thus, you believe in revolution. "

A similar tactic may be employed to encourage someone to renounce an opinion, or force them to choose between renouncing an opinion or admitting membership in a group. For example:

"You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable. You don't really mean that, do you? Communists say the same thing. You're not a communist, are you?"

Guilt by association may be combined with ad hominem abusive. For example:

"You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, and therefore you are a communist. Communists are unlikeable, and therefore everything they say is false, and therefore everything you say is false. "

Inverse ad hominem

An inverse ad hominem argument praises a person in order to add support for that person's argument or claim. A fallacious inverse ad hominem argument may go something like this:

"That man was smartly-dressed and charming, so I'll accept his argument that I should vote for him"

As with regular ad hominem arguments, not all cases of inverse ad hominem are fallacious. Consider the following:

"Ludmila has never told a lie in her entire life, and she says she saw him take the bag. She must be telling the truth. "

Here the arguer is not suggesting we accept Ludmila's argument, but her testimony. "Testify" redirects here For other uses see Testify (disambiguation and Testimony (disambiguation. Her being an honest person is relevant to the truth of the conclusion (that he took the bag), just as her having bad eyesight (a regular case of ad hominem) would give reason not to believe her.

Appeal to authority is a type of inverse ad hominem argument. An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in Logic called a fallacy

See also

• Ad feminam
• "And you are lynching Negroes"
• Association fallacy
• Fair game (Scientology)
• Fundamental attribution error
• Shooting the messenger

References

Sources

• Hurley, Patrick (2000). Patrick Jay Hurley ( January 8, 1883, Choctaw Nation Indian Territory &mdash July 30, 1963, Santa Fe, NM) was A Concise Introduction to Logic, Seventh Edition. Wadsworth, a division of Thompson Learning, 125-128, 182. ISBN 0534520065.  
• Copi, Irving M. and Cohen, Carl. Introduction to Logic (8th Ed. ), p. 97-100.

Further reading

• Walton, Douglas (1998). Douglas Neil Walton is a Canadian academic and author well known for his many widely published books and papers on Argumentation, logical Fallacies and Ad Hominem Arguments. Tuscaloosa: University Alabama Press, 240 pp.  

External links

• Nizkor.org: Fallacy: Ad Hominem.
• Nizkor.org: Fallacy: Circumstantial Ad Hominem.
• Argumentum Ad Hominem
• the ad hominem fallacy fallacy
• University of Winnipeg: Argumentation Schemes and Historical Origins of the Circumstantial Ad Hominen ArgumentPDF (70. 2 KiB)
• About.com: Argument Against the Person (Argumentum ad hominem)
• Logical Fallacies: Ad Hominem
• Infidels.org: Logic and Fallacies: Constructing a Logical Argument (Argumentum ad Hominem)
• theness.org: The New England Skeptical Society: How to Argue

A kibibyte (a contraction of ki lo bi nary byte) is a unit of Information or Computer storage, established by the International

© 2009 citizendia.org; parts available under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License, from http://en.wikipedia.org
Dapyx Software network: MP3 Explorer | Ebook Manager | Zenithic