Is this an ad hominem fallacy?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Logic and Philosophy of Math » Is this an ad hominem fallacy? » Is this an ad hominem fallacy?

Is this an ad hominem fallacy?
Wanting feedback on the application of this fallacy.

Page: 1 2

Is this an ad hominem fallacy?

Gadfly II
In the ointment

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 14, 2009
Location: San Diego, CA

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 210

Posted 07/20/09 - 10:37 AM:	#11
[ Of course not. I was trying to be as concise as possible. [/quote] Granted. Culling the dead wood is important for clear communication. [ The revised first statement from Bob would actually be: Bob: A Professor ought to be able to teach a subject if they are suitably qualified even if they held Y view. To support this, please consider evidences A, B and C.[/quote] My point here is that no supporting premises were offered in the first example; thus it did not qualify as an argument. (you culled too much) I know many teachers will give bald assertions and expect their students to invent an argument, and this is what I object to, because it leads the student into a habit of putting entire arguments into people's mouths! I've never understood the resistance of some teachers to simply making the reasoning explicit. Perhaps it becomes easy to see the error. And this is my point. If someone spouts an assertion that you agree or disagree with it is better to simply ask them to elaborate and try to put their reasoning in the best possible light. This way the errors become clear and there remains an attitude of harmony rather than contentiousness. Also if someone is simply being stubborn and clings to an obviously erroneous conclusion it makes it easier to recognize that this is the case and further intelligent conversation is out of the question.
Dare to use your own reason. Kant

Vulcan23
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 24

Posted 07/30/09 - 03:54 PM:	#12
I may be wrong but my understanding of ad hominem is that you attack the person, not the argument. Say: Person 1-Abortion can be a viable option. Person 2- Well your a immoral, baby killing, democrat.

aufbau87
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 08, 2008
Location: Southern California

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 62

Posted 08/01/09 - 08:26 PM:	#13
BlackJack wrote: Not sure if this is the right forum for the question, but considering there could be a dispute, perhaps it is. I'm curious about the application of the ad hominem fallacy, specifically, if it exists in the following scenario. ____________________________________________ Bob: A Professor ought to be able to teach a subject if they are suitably qualified even if they held Y view (that may not necessarily be mainstream and was only expressed outside the curriculum...it was not something to be taught in class). Joe: BS. You would not agree to a Professor teaching a subject if Y view was something that you disagreed with. Instead, you'd oppose this Professor from teaching the subject. Bob: First of all, that's not the case at all. Secondly, you committed an ad hominem fallacy as it does not address the merits of the statement. Joe: It isn't an ad hominem because you are guilty of special pleading and because I merely offered an opinion, I wasn't intending to address your argument. ________________________ To me, it appears to be obvious that Joe is clearly in the wrong. However... 1) Is the fallacy of special pleading existent in Bob's argument (even if Bob states that he would be consistent regardless of Y)? No. He is not proposing an unrealistic standard for supporting his claim. In fact, he gives no argument for his statement. 2) If special pleading does exist, does it negate a potential ad hominem fallacy from Bob? Even if special pleading existed in this case, Joe is not addressing the statement (or argument, if special pleading exists), which makes him the worse in this argument. 3) Are opinions immune from being fallacious? Is it the case that opinions (by virture of being an opinion) don't intend on addressing arguments and thus cannot be considered fallacious? An opinion is a particular type of attitude towards a statement (e.g. it is my opinion that the moon is made of cheese); not an argument. Thus, opinions can't be fallacious, so, I think you're right. And this is not surprising. To say a non-argument is non-fallacious is like saying a non-number is non-prime.

Jurist
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 04, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 21

Posted 08/04/09 - 09:22 AM:	#14
Vulcan23 wrote: I may be wrong but my understanding of ad hominem is that you attack the person, not the argument. Say: Person 1-Abortion can be a viable option. Person 2- Well your a immoral, baby killing, democrat. You're close. You need to go a little further with Person 2, otherwise your Person 2 is just slinging an insult. To commit an ad hominem fallacy, your scenario should be revised to something as follows: Person 1: I argue A is true. Person 2: A is false because Person 1 is stupid. The ad hominem fallacy involves Person 2 attacking Person 1 as a means of invalidating Person 1's argument.
Just because I'm a lawyer doesn't mean I'm always wrong. -- Me

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.