Ad Hominem

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

2. 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.

3. Why this is a fallacy. • Focus should be on the argument. • Personal traits (Character) of the arguer generally irrelevant.

4. Types-Ad Hominem Fallacy • Personal-abusive • Bias-special interest • Inconsistency • Psychological • Inverse ad hominem

5. 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.

6. 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…

7. Abusive Against • Personally attacks the person giving the argument. • x says p, x is bad, therefore, don’t accept p. • Dr. Jones says that this plan for nuclear waste will not work, but we all know he is a womanizer and heavy drinker.

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

9. Circumstantial- Bias • x says p, x is biased because of his circumstances, thus you can’t accept p. • “ Louis says that this oil drilling will destroy the ecosystem in this area, but he is an environmentalist and thus this can’t be true.”

10. 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

11. 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.

12. Testimony/Argument • Testimony within argument-p. 187 • Critical- argument for profit- research, and statements.

13. 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.”

14. Ad Hominem Attack • Ad hominem attack on testimony proper. • Judge all info about past behavior, special interest, character of person testifying.

15. Inconsistency-Ad H • Accuses arguer of being inconsistent or hypocritical. • Dr. Smith argues for global warming, but two years ago he said this was not the case.

16. Where is the fallacy? • Says one is “speaking out of both sides of one’s mouth,” but one can change one’s mind with reason.

17. 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.”

18. Inconsistency Again • If between argument and actions-Fallacy. • If within argument- bad argument. • If testimony-then inconsistency relevant.

19. Psychological Ad H • Focuses 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.

20. Inverse Ad Hominem • Praise 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.

21. Testimony Credibility • Testimony takes it’s strength entirely from its source. • Legitimate to ask about character, truthfulness, reliability, and motive for testimony (paid, incentives).

22. Questions to Pursue • Does 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?

23. Psychology-Testimony Psychological instability is relevant to the credibility of testimony.

24. Testimony & Praise • Good qualities are relevant for testimony • Being honest, truthful, principled, unbiased, and psychologically sound is relevant to testimony.

25. More Fallacies • Strawperson • Slippery Slope • False Dilemma • Golden Mean • Begging the Question

26. Straw Person (Man) • This tactic attempts to refute a position by oversimplifying or exaggerating their claims. • One weakens their argument or misrepresents their argument and then attacks this weakened version

27. Strawman Example • Mobil’s argument against those who favor “soft energy” (e.g. solar, wind, wood burning, etc). • They want to “get all our energy from firewood.”

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. Beard - Slippery Slope • This fallacy assumes that you cannot draw lines or distinctions- e.g. “when does one have a beard.” • “If you give my husband an inch, he takes a yard. First it was a lawnmower, then a blower, then a weed-wacker. Soon there will be no room in the garage.”

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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.

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

35. False Dilemma • This poses a false choice.- “Either we pay the government or they pay us, so why work” • Either we ban all weapons or we will have all-out war.

36. Why this is a Fallacy. • This “Black or White” Fallacy assumes that there are always only two alternatives, but this usually is not true. • “Life is neither black or white, but chocolate brown.” -Hegel

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

38. Other possibilities • Given the problems of eye witness testimony, the butler could be genuinely mistaken. • Ask- “Are there other possibilities?”

39. 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.

40. 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.

41. Always available mean • Can construct for any issue- weak or strong • Golden mean can support contradictory conclusions. • Is the mean a good argument?

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

43. 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.

44. Circular Begging • This is circular reasoning with the form: • P is true because Q is true and Q is true because P is true.

45. Begging the Question • “If men are to survive, they must be fit. Indeed, only the fittest survive. Look at those who have survived. They have because they are fit.”

46. 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.

47. Complex Question • An implied answer is contained in the question. • When did you stop beating your wife?

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

49. RECAP IDEAS Assess the argument , not the arguer. Things are not usually between two choices. Lines can be drawn, one need not slide down a slope. Lack of proof is no proof.

50. More summary ideas • The middle position is not automatically correct or good. • Repetition of the conclusion does not make it so. • Why ask, if you know.