Saying someone is throwing around 'ad hominem attacks' is not the same as saying they are committing the informal logical fallacy of the ad hominem. English is more flexible than all that. They are attacks against a person in both cases, in one case it conforms to the traditional fallacy.
It's like the term 'begs the question.' It is used as an informal fallacy. It is also used as a synonym for 'This raises the interesting question...'
If someone is making a harsh personal attack along with an argument, you still have mulitplied issues. If I said "You're being intellectually dishonest. Here's what's wrong with your position, dummy," there may in fact be a counter-argument to my position, so the personal issue doesn't exactly replace the substantive response. However, it introduces an issue concerning the holder of the position which is independent of the merits of the issue in question, which is at least a potential distaction.
I remember being in discussions where my opponents would write lots and lots of stuff, but the tone was harsh, and the I got criticized because I didn't respond to all the stuff in the responses. But if someone's tone is not civilized I have trouble getting though all that personal stuff to find the real substantive points.
Odd that you would imagine you can fault someone for accuracy and/or precision.
Oh! Silly me! It isn't at all odd that you'd imagine that
============= VR: "If someone is making a harsh personal attack along with an argument, you still have mulitplied issues. If I said "You're being intellectually dishonest. Here's what's wrong with your position, dummy," there may in fact be a counter-argument to my position, so the personal issue doesn't exactly replace the substantive response. However, it introduces an issue concerning the holder of the position which is independent of the merits of the issue in question, which is at least a potential distaction."
The only intrinsically wrong aspect of "You're being intellectually dishonest. Here's what's wrong with your position, dummy," is the word "dummy."
Intellectual dishonesty charges (as opposed to simple charges of lying) require information about other people's internal states that I don't see how anyone other than the person can be privy to.
Let's take someone who believes, quite firmly, that abortion and infanticide are justified. These activities, according to Peter Singer, were attacked by people with Christian assumptions which need to be questioned. That is what the person says, that is what the person believes, that is what the person argues for. They offer criteria for personhood which fetuses and infants flunk, and they are bloody consistent about it. I may think they're cuckoo, but how do I get to intellectual dishonesty? What does the charge of intellectual dishonesty amount to here?
It's tempting to say "surely you really know you're wrong about this." Can I justify this claim concerning another person? How?
I think the guy is wrong (well, not strictly wrong, but at least on the practical level) because he's assuming that when people are reading a response, say drivers-by on an internet message board, that they distinguish between arguments and insults in a rejoinder by one poster to another. Rather, every word a person writes in response to someone else is judged as supposed refutation, since it is all included in their response.
Thus, it is useful for the other person to point out the ad hominen nature of an invective-ridden response since that deflates the confidence of the opponent as doing any logical damage, since confidence according to the assumptions of online message boards is a sort of argument in itself. It sounds more definitive than "stop being mean," anyways, since "ad hominen" says more directly, "This doesn't go to show my argument is wrong."
BDK: "This thread will devolve down a self-referential spiral if we aren't careful."
If so, it's because you are intellectually dishonest ... you're worse than a mere liar, for the mere liar lies about an item, but the intellectually dishonest man lies about the nature ot truth itself.
7 comments:
He's just being pedantic.
Saying someone is throwing around 'ad hominem attacks' is not the same as saying they are committing the informal logical fallacy of the ad hominem. English is more flexible than all that. They are attacks against a person in both cases, in one case it conforms to the traditional fallacy.
It's like the term 'begs the question.' It is used as an informal fallacy. It is also used as a synonym for 'This raises the interesting question...'
If someone is making a harsh personal attack along with an argument, you still have mulitplied issues. If I said "You're being intellectually dishonest. Here's what's wrong with your position, dummy," there may in fact be a counter-argument to my position, so the personal issue doesn't exactly replace the substantive response. However, it introduces an issue concerning the holder of the position which is independent of the merits of the issue in question, which is at least a potential distaction.
I remember being in discussions where my opponents would write lots and lots of stuff, but the tone was harsh, and the I got criticized because I didn't respond to all the stuff in the responses. But if someone's tone is not civilized I have trouble getting though all that personal stuff to find the real substantive points.
BDK: "He's just being pedantic. ..."
Odd that you would imagine you can fault someone for accuracy and/or precision.
Oh! Silly me! It isn't at all odd that you'd imagine that
=============
VR: "If someone is making a harsh personal attack along with an argument, you still have mulitplied issues. If I said "You're being intellectually dishonest. Here's what's wrong with your position, dummy," there may in fact be a counter-argument to my position, so the personal issue doesn't exactly replace the substantive response. However, it introduces an issue concerning the holder of the position which is independent of the merits of the issue in question, which is at least a potential distaction."
The only intrinsically wrong aspect of "You're being intellectually dishonest. Here's what's wrong with your position, dummy," is the word "dummy."
Intellectual dishonesty charges (as opposed to simple charges of lying) require information about other people's internal states that I don't see how anyone other than the person can be privy to.
Let's take someone who believes, quite firmly, that abortion and infanticide are justified. These activities, according to Peter Singer, were attacked by people with Christian assumptions which need to be questioned. That is what the person says, that is what the person believes, that is what the person argues for. They offer criteria for personhood which fetuses and infants flunk, and they are bloody consistent about it. I may think they're cuckoo, but how do I get to intellectual dishonesty? What does the charge of intellectual dishonesty amount to here?
It's tempting to say "surely you really know you're wrong about this." Can I justify this claim concerning another person? How?
I think the guy is wrong (well, not strictly wrong, but at least on the practical level) because he's assuming that when people are reading a response, say drivers-by on an internet message board, that they distinguish between arguments and insults in a rejoinder by one poster to another. Rather, every word a person writes in response to someone else is judged as supposed refutation, since it is all included in their response.
Thus, it is useful for the other person to point out the ad hominen nature of an invective-ridden response since that deflates the confidence of the opponent as doing any logical damage, since confidence according to the assumptions of online message boards is a sort of argument in itself. It sounds more definitive than "stop being mean," anyways, since "ad hominen" says more directly, "This doesn't go to show my argument is wrong."
Ilion: what a surprise you side with the pedant.
And ironic to try to take the high ground about precision, given your goo-headed thinking about truth in science.
This thread will devolve down a self-referential spiral if we aren't careful.
BDK: "This thread will devolve down a self-referential spiral if we aren't careful."
If so, it's because you are intellectually dishonest ... you're worse than a mere liar, for the mere liar lies about an item, but the intellectually dishonest man lies about the nature ot truth itself.
Post a Comment