The Art of Debate: Logical Fallacies - ad hominem

In the book "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Steven Covey makes the assertion that if you want to learn something, teach it. Well, I don't know as much as I like about logical fallacies, so I have decided to write articles defining and describing the logical fallacies I see around the Vine, and are accused of using in my own comments.

The first step in learning is recognizing you don't know something. In a past thread, Jack Huang accused me of creating a "strawman." I thought, "What the Hell does that mean?" Oh, it may seem stupid to some, but it isn't stupidity. It's ignorance. Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of, in my opinion. Will Rogers said, "Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects." I went to college and earned a degree in horticulture. I can tell you all sorts of things about soil profiles, micro-nutrients, entomology and shade tolerant flowering shrubs in Zone 5 climates. But, unfortunately for me, this degree did not require too many classes in logic or critical thinking.

When Jack Huang hit me with the strawman accusation, I recognized that I was lacking this knowledge and desired it. But first, it made me angry and I didn't handle it well. I think, I'm not sure, but I think Jack pulled the trigger on the "Ignore This Author" button. I don't blame him if he did. I went straight for the ol' ad hominem. If you read this, sorry Jack.

I have since collected and read many articles on logical fallacies and think I am ready to start these articles. I will try to use actual debates from threads around the Vine. This may upset people, but if so, those people need to grow up. I was used to set an example to the class through the bulk of my academic career. I turned out mostly adjusted. You can suffer through it also. Feel free to discuss your thoughts about your comment or debate why it isn't a fallacy.

I said I am doing this to learn. Point out my mistakes. I know with all the love here, you would never hesitate to point out a fault in another. We can use this to sharpen each others iron. I have a strong self-image and don't mind admitting mistakes or having them pointed out. Actually, I would prefer to have them highlighted than to continue making them.

So, let's define what a fallacy is and look at the argumentum ad hominem. After all, I used it and it may be the most often used fallacy on all of the Internets (sorry Dubya. But that's funny.)

=========================================================================

Logical fallacies are weaknesses in an argument or a failure in reasoning. They may sound reasonable or true, but in fact, they are rickety statements that may be downright dishonest. Wikipedia says:

A logical fallacy is an error in logical argument which is independent of the truth of the premises. It is a flaw in the structure of an argument as opposed to an error in its premises. When there is a fallacy in an argument it is said to be invalid.

It is useful to categorize fallacies, to better understand where the failure of logic occurs. There are fallacies of relevance, fallacies of ambiguity, omission and component.

The fallacy Argumentum ad hominem, literally translated mean "attack to the man." It is a fallacy of relevance. This type of argument is flawed because it fails to address the premise but rather goes after the person stating the premise. It looks something like this:

Speaker #1: I think that minimum wages should be mandated by the Federal government to ensure everyone can make a living wage.

Speaker #2: You're a liberal idiot.

Speaker #1: You can't talk to me...blah, blah, blah...Code of Honor....blah, blah, blah...

Speaker #2: Idiot.

The fact that Speaker #2 may or may not be a liberal idiot has nothing to do with his premise on minimum wage. Speaker #2 needs to attack the premise, not the man. A better rebuttal might be:

Speaker #1: I think that minimum wages should be mandated by the Federal government to ensure everyone can make a living wage.

Speaker #2: The federal government has it's power given to it by the Constitution and mandating payment rates between employer and employee is not one of those powers.

Here, the second speaker has attacked the premise that the Federal government can dictate wages. His statement attacks the premise of the argument, rather than the speaker.

Let's look at one from a recent thread. This thread was a very heated thread that was loaded with fallacies but this one illustrates ad hominem in a subtle way:

searayman

If they really didn't agree with the war they could get out, there is always a way out. You could do something to get kicked out.

Dennis P. McCann

Let me guess. Not a veteran. College student? Maybe still in High School?

Now, understand, Dennis doesn't seem angry in what he wrote. When I think "attacks the person," I usually think there is some strong emotion involved. That is not necessarily true. Dennis's response attacks the person, searayman, and not the premise, that if a military person wanted out of war, he could do something stupid and get kicked out. A better response was given by finalcut later in the thread

finalcut

A true soldier, who was opposed to the war, would file as a conscientious objector and continue to serve their country in a non-combative role; they wouldn't just quit.

Argumentum ad hominem fails to refute the premise because the person stating the premise isn't important. The evidence for and against the premise is what matters. If your premise is ignored but you are attacked, simply point out that they refuter has not addressed the premise but attacked you. This will, hopefully, deflate the attack on you and redirect his attention to the premise.

Back To Top