Ad HominemAd Hominem

Dismissing arguments by Dismissing arguments by attacking the source (the attacking the source (the person) giving the argument.person) giving the argument.

Form of the Argument

Attacks the source of the argument (the arguer)

Says: because there are flaws in the source of the argument, therefore there are flaws in the argument itself.

Why this is a fallacy.Why this is a fallacy. Focus should Focus should

be on the be on the argument.argument.

Personal traits Personal traits (Character) of (Character) of the arguer the arguer generally generally irrelevant.irrelevant.

Types-Ad Hominem Fallacy

Personal-abusiveBias-special interestInconsistencyPsychologicalInverse ad hominem

Ad Hominem Argument

Ad hominem argument-can be legitimate and cogent.

Example- Richard Nixon-misled people, lied and vindictive. Lionel has a bad temper, does not like children, and can’t think- should not be a teacher.

Ad Hominem-Argument

Some ad hominem attack are irrelevant- e.g. Lionel is unfit to teach because he is bow-legged and wears ugly socks.

Fallacy- Do not believe his argument because he is…

Abusive Against Personally attacks the Personally attacks the

person giving the argument.person giving the argument. x says p, x is bad, x says p, x is bad,

therefore, don’t accept p.therefore, don’t accept p. Dr. Jones says that this plan Dr. Jones says that this plan

for nuclear waste will not for nuclear waste will not work, but we all know he is a work, but we all know he is a womanizer and heavy drinker.womanizer and heavy drinker.

Why these are Why these are wrong.wrong.

Regardless of who the Regardless of who the person is, whatever their person is, whatever their position, or how bad a position, or how bad a character they possess, character they possess, they may have a well- they may have a well- reasoned argument and reasoned argument and their conclusion may be their conclusion may be justified.justified.

Circumstantial- BiasCircumstantial- Bias x says p, x is biased because x says p, x is biased because

of his circumstances, thus of his circumstances, thus you can’t accept p.you can’t accept p. “ “ Louis says that this oil Louis says that this oil

drilling will destroy the drilling will destroy the ecosystem in this area, but ecosystem in this area, but he is an environmentalist he is an environmentalist and thus this can’t be and thus this can’t be true.”true.”

Why this is a fallacy

Flaws in the source do not mean flaws in the argument-having a special interest does not make the argument unsound.

Do look more carefully at the argument

Advocacy-Testimony

Lawyer as advocate, but not testimony.-interest and no chance to challenge.

Cannot discredit advocate’s argument by ad hominem- this is a fallacy.

Testimony/Argument

Testimony within argument-p. 187

Critical- argument for profit- research, and statements.

Testimony/Argument

“Testimony is like an arrow shot from a long bow; the force of it depends on the strength of the hand that draws it. Argument is like an arrow from a crossbow, which has equal force though shot by a child.”

Ad Hominem Attack

Ad hominem attack on testimony proper.

Judge all info about past behavior, special interest, character of person testifying.

Inconsistency-Ad Inconsistency-Ad HH Accuses arguer of Accuses arguer of

being inconsistent or being inconsistent or hypocritical.hypocritical. Dr. Smith argues for Dr. Smith argues for global warming, but two global warming, but two years ago he said this years ago he said this was not the case.was not the case.

Where is the fallacy? Says one is Says one is

“speaking “speaking out of both out of both sides of sides of one’s one’s mouth,” but mouth,” but one can one can change one’s change one’s mind with mind with reason.reason.

Hypocrites can argue Doctor (with cigarette in hand) argues: “You should quit smoking. Evidence shows that long-term smoking damages the lungs and can lead to cancer. Second-hand smoke also damages the lungs of others in your family, especially the young children.”

Inconsistency Again

If between argument and actions-Fallacy.

If within argument- bad argument.

If testimony-then inconsistency relevant.

Psychological Ad HFocuses on mental state of the arguer-implied sympathy.

You should dismiss Bert’s argument about banning whale hunting; it is all about his own guilt at being a rich boy.

Inverse Ad HominemPraise for the source of the argument is not relevant to the quality of the argument.

Horace is one of the kindest persons I know so his argument about hunting should be listened to.

Testimony Credibility

Testimony takes it’s strength entirely from its source.

Legitimate to ask about character, truthfulness, reliability, and motive for testimony (paid, incentives).

Questions to PursueDoes the person have a

history of lying, fraud and deceit?

Is the person delusional or paranoid?

Self-interest; payment.Does witness have special

interest or bias in the case?

Psychology-Testimony

Psychological instability is relevant to the credibility of testimony.

Testimony & Praise

Good qualities are relevant for testimony

Being honest, truthful, principled, unbiased, and psychologically sound is relevant to testimony.

More Fallacies

StrawpersonSlippery SlopeFalse DilemmaGolden MeanBegging the Question

Straw Person (Man)Straw Person (Man)

This tactic attempts to This tactic attempts to refute a position by refute a position by oversimplifying or oversimplifying or exaggerating their claims.exaggerating their claims.

One weakens their argument One weakens their argument or misrepresents their or misrepresents their argument and then attacks argument and then attacks this weakened versionthis weakened version

Strawman ExampleMobil’s argument against

those who favor “soft energy” (e.g. solar, wind, wood burning, etc).

They want to “get all our energy from firewood.”

Another Strawman Buckley’s argument against

“anti-handgun” fundamentalists.

They tell you even the presence of a loaded handgun means Mr. Finegan is going to get drunk and shoot the Mrs.

Important Questions

Is this the strongest view of the position?

Is this an accurate picture?

Principle of charity-Interpret opposing arguments as generously and fairly as possible.

Beard - Slippery Slope This fallacy assumes that This fallacy assumes that

you cannot draw lines or you cannot draw lines or distinctions- e.g. “when does distinctions- e.g. “when does one have a beard.”one have a beard.”““If you give my husband an If you give my husband an

inch, he takes a yard. First it inch, he takes a yard. First it was a lawnmower, then a was a lawnmower, then a blower, then a weed-wacker. blower, then a weed-wacker. Soon there will be no room in Soon there will be no room in the garage.”the garage.”

Slippery Slope Claims an innocent-looking

step should not be taken because it will lead quickly to bad results.

Eg. If we put flourides in our water, then it will be in our tea, coffee, lemonade, bodies, and then there will be tranquillizers and other drugs.

Legitimate Slope

Must provide clear and good reasons for each step down the slope.

Give good reasons for why and how a particular action will lead to bad results.

Distracting Technique

Focus on “dire results” distracts us from real issue.

Burden of proof is on the person claiming that terrible consequences will follow-must offer good reasons for these claims.

Letting the camel in.

Assumes that Assumes that if you let the if you let the camel’s nose camel’s nose into the tent, into the tent, then the then the whole camel whole camel will follow.will follow.

False DilemmaFalse Dilemma This poses a false This poses a false

choice.- “Either we pay choice.- “Either we pay the government or they the government or they pay us, so why work”pay us, so why work”

Either we ban all Either we ban all weapons or we will weapons or we will have all-out war.have all-out war.

Why this is a Why this is a Fallacy.Fallacy.

This “Black or White” Fallacy This “Black or White” Fallacy assumes that there are assumes that there are always only two alternatives, always only two alternatives, but this usually is not true.but this usually is not true.““Life is neither black or Life is neither black or

white, but chocolate white, but chocolate brown.” -brown.” -HegelHegel

Convincing, butEither the butler saw the defendant kill Lord Rutabaga or he is lying. But he is known for his honesty, thus.

Other possibilitiesGiven the problems of eye witness testimony, the butler could be genuinely mistaken.

Ask- “Are there other possibilities?”

Raising Fees Again

The state has decreased its funding to the university. This leaves us with a terrible choice. Either we must raise fees, or we have to close the library.

The Golden Mean This assumes that the middle

position, a compromise is always correct. This may well not be the case.

To allow second degree murder (no intent) for a poisoning is an odd compromise.

Always available mean

Can construct for any issue- weak or strong

Golden mean can support contradictory conclusions.

Is the mean a good argument?

Begging the question

This is an argument that hides its conclusion as a premise and thus does not really prove anything new.

Synonymous Begging Disguises conclusion in premises

by giving a synonymous form of it.

Socialism is not workable because an economic system in which the means of production are collectively owned cannot work.

Circular Circular BeggingBeggingThis is circular This is circular

reasoning with the reasoning with the form:form:

P is true because Q is P is true because Q is true and Q is true true and Q is true because P is true.because P is true.

Begging the QuestionBegging the Question““If men are to survive, If men are to survive,

they must be fit. they must be fit. Indeed, only the fittest Indeed, only the fittest survive. Look at those survive. Look at those who have survived. who have survived. They have because They have because they are fit.”they are fit.”

Self-Sealing Argument

This is to win an argument by constant redefinition.

All women drivers are terrible- provide counterexample and he says “But she drives like a man.

Complex Question

An implied answer is contained in the question.

When did you stop beating your wife?

Loaded Question “Have you always loved to be last in the league?”

RECAP IDEASRECAP IDEASAssess the argument , not the Assess the argument , not the

arguer.arguer.

Things are not usually Things are not usually between two choices.between two choices.

Lines can be drawn, one need Lines can be drawn, one need not slide down a slope.not slide down a slope.

Lack of proof is no proof.Lack of proof is no proof.

More summary ideasThe middle position is not

automatically correct or good.

Repetition of the conclusion does not make it so.

Why ask, if you know.