http://steel-not-glass.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
steel-not-glass.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomhigh2010-06-10 03:28 pm
steel-not-glass.livejournal.com) wrote in fandomhigh2010-06-10 03:28 pm
Entry tags:
Logical Fallacies, Thursday, Period 3
"We're switching things up on your syllabus today," Cindy said as soon as the bell rang. "Rather than waiting until next week, we're jumping right to ad hominem attacks. Mostly because they're so common; they're one of my favorite fallacies."
Sitting on the edge of her desk, Cindy explained, "Ad hominem means 'to the man.' It's a fallacy that links the validity of a given argument to a particular quality of the the interlocutor: conduct, character, motive, etc. Have you ever had an argument of yours dismissed out of hand because you're 'just a kid'? You were probably the victim of an ad hominem attack. Somehow, your youth negates your ability to form a coherent argument or comprehend the issue at hand. Of course, not every argument that brings up a personal quality is an ad hominem, so long as the quality is pertinent to the argument and logically related. Uding the argument, 'Don't listen to Mike about the economy; he cheats on his wife' is an example of an ad hominem. Mike's philandering has nothing to do with his understanding of economics. Whereas the argument 'Don't listen to Mike's advice about marriage; he cheats on his wife' is a logical argument."
She distributed some handouts to the class. "That type argument, where one person points out unrelated character flaws, negative facts, or uses insults to raise doubts about the other person's argument is called ad hominem abusive. When done well, these kinds of arguments rely on thin and specious links; for example, suggesting that Mike will cheat on his taxes because he cheats on his wife. The repeated word makes the argument sound valid and raises the question 'if does one, why wouldn't he do the other?' even though the actions are very different from one another."
"While that is the most common form of ad hominem attack, there are several others that are closely related. Ad hominem tu quoque is the attempt to discredit the argument by suggesting that the source of that argument acts inconsistently towards it. The idea that one cannot steal from a thief is a good argument of this fallacy. Another, guilt by association suggests a relation between a person making an argument and a larger group that made a similar argument. Usually this group is viewed in a negative light, thus discrediting the speaker and the argument at the same time. Often, this attack leads to Reductio ad Hitlerum, thus leading to the oft-quoted Godwin's Law, at least on the internet. Basically, it boils down to the idea that if you can convince people that someone is arguing a point because of their secret sympathies lie with an enemy, you can get people ignore everything that person is saying and even turn the crowd hostile."
"There is also an inverse to the ad hominem attack; where praise for someone can convince people to the validity of their argument, even if the praise has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Since the advent of TV, for example, studies have shown that people are swayed by the attractiveness of the speaker. This was illustrated sharply during the first debate between Nixon and Kennedy. People who listened to the debate on the radio believed that Nixon had won the debate; people who watched the debate on the television believed that Kennedy--younger, healthier, and handsomer--had won instead."
[OCD up]
Sitting on the edge of her desk, Cindy explained, "Ad hominem means 'to the man.' It's a fallacy that links the validity of a given argument to a particular quality of the the interlocutor: conduct, character, motive, etc. Have you ever had an argument of yours dismissed out of hand because you're 'just a kid'? You were probably the victim of an ad hominem attack. Somehow, your youth negates your ability to form a coherent argument or comprehend the issue at hand. Of course, not every argument that brings up a personal quality is an ad hominem, so long as the quality is pertinent to the argument and logically related. Uding the argument, 'Don't listen to Mike about the economy; he cheats on his wife' is an example of an ad hominem. Mike's philandering has nothing to do with his understanding of economics. Whereas the argument 'Don't listen to Mike's advice about marriage; he cheats on his wife' is a logical argument."
She distributed some handouts to the class. "That type argument, where one person points out unrelated character flaws, negative facts, or uses insults to raise doubts about the other person's argument is called ad hominem abusive. When done well, these kinds of arguments rely on thin and specious links; for example, suggesting that Mike will cheat on his taxes because he cheats on his wife. The repeated word makes the argument sound valid and raises the question 'if does one, why wouldn't he do the other?' even though the actions are very different from one another."
"While that is the most common form of ad hominem attack, there are several others that are closely related. Ad hominem tu quoque is the attempt to discredit the argument by suggesting that the source of that argument acts inconsistently towards it. The idea that one cannot steal from a thief is a good argument of this fallacy. Another, guilt by association suggests a relation between a person making an argument and a larger group that made a similar argument. Usually this group is viewed in a negative light, thus discrediting the speaker and the argument at the same time. Often, this attack leads to Reductio ad Hitlerum, thus leading to the oft-quoted Godwin's Law, at least on the internet. Basically, it boils down to the idea that if you can convince people that someone is arguing a point because of their secret sympathies lie with an enemy, you can get people ignore everything that person is saying and even turn the crowd hostile."
"There is also an inverse to the ad hominem attack; where praise for someone can convince people to the validity of their argument, even if the praise has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Since the advent of TV, for example, studies have shown that people are swayed by the attractiveness of the speaker. This was illustrated sharply during the first debate between Nixon and Kennedy. People who listened to the debate on the radio believed that Nixon had won the debate; people who watched the debate on the television believed that Kennedy--younger, healthier, and handsomer--had won instead."
[OCD up]