An ad hominem fallacy is an attack on a person rather than their position or argument. Why is this fallacious? How can we identify this fallacy? How do we respond?
NOTES
- ad hominem- attacking the person giving the argument rather than the argument itself
- Three kinds:
- circumstantial- attacking a person's circumstances
- If they stand to gain from winning the argument, that's a reason to evaluate it, not reject it
- abusive- attacking the person directly
- Name calling
- We can evaluate a person's character to see if they are trustworthy as an authority but not to evaluate their argument
- tu quoque- attacking a person's hypocrisy
- Hypocrisy doesn't automatically invalidate a person's position/argument, but a person can be a counterexample to their own position if they are living it out but not getting the predicted effect
- circumstantial- attacking a person's circumstances
- Tips
- How to identify: Would the response to the argument/position still make sense if we didn't know whose argument/position it was?
- How to avoid it: Argue to understand others, not to win
- How to respond to it:
- Listen first
- Ask the person to look past you and address the argument
Further Reading
Intellectuals, by Paul Johnson
Leave a Reply