What is an ad hominem?

[_Sam Harris]

I've decided to start this thread here so that perhaps we can come to a consensus about a certain term, in order that discussion here might take a more comfortable tone.

If you wish, can the regular participants on this board each give their view on what an ad hominem attack is? Please do not quote anyone (leave wiki and other online definitions out of it), put it in your own words.

The reason why I ask is because I keep seeing accusations of ad hominem attacks being thrown out, but I'm not always seeing where that is the case. Is disagreeing with someone or even finding amusement in the way they present an argument ad hominem? I'd appreciate it if the focus would not be on my personal vision, because I know what an ad hominem attack is, I throw them out with relish when I so please. One reason why I don't always post up here.

It just seems that interesting discussions up here (which I do like to read from time to time) are being filled with accusations that someone picked on someone else. I think that for the sake of the calibre of discussion here, there needs to be a consensus on what an ad hominem attack is and is not, so that all participants here can move on and continue to exchange information and dialogue.

There are people who read these threads who are quite interested in the information that all parties present, who may not want to read through pages of back and forth on who said what. Those who post here who give out this information have the potential to educate many a lurker (myself included), but some do not have the time or desire to worry about who said what twenty posts ago, and why that was an ad hominem.

I would not be surprised if this thread had no replies, but I just wanted to do an experiment and put it out there.

To all Celestial Scholars here: what is an ad hominem? What is not?

Peace!

Sam Harris/GIMR

[_Moniker]

An ad hom fallacy, I think, is when you attack the person and not the argument. You ignore the argument and conclude the argument is not sound 'cause the person making the argument is such and such a thing. I'm pretty sure. Yet, if you insult the person and still take on the argument -- for instance saying someone is such and such because they make the argument is not an ad hom fallacy. I think? Lately this board just uses ad hom for any personal attack whether it takes on the argument or not. That irritates me..........

To be blunt; I don't care what one is or not! I just know it bugs the hell out of me to see other people repeatedly talking about them!

[_GoodK]

An ad hominem can be a lot of things, I think, but on this board is most often in the form of a personal attack on scholarship. For instance, I'm sure we've all read Kevin telling JAK he gets his information from skeptic and anti-religion blogs, etc...
Or when Jersey Girl says someone get's their information from some sort of dubious source... or when someone like DCP labels a book like NMKMH as a historical novel, and its author an anti-mormon... those, in my opinion, are ad hominems. They don't address the substance, rather the person making the claim.

[_marg]

It is an unwarranted attack on the opponent, that is the attack has little to no relevancy on the logic of the argument and/or insufficent evidentiary support has been made to support and justify the attack and so the attack may be false, and/or has little to no bearing on the logic of the argument. That's when it is fallacious.

If the attack is relevant to the logic in the argument, and justified it isn't fallacious.

[_Sam Harris]

An ad hom fallacy, I think, is when you attack the person and not the argument. You ignore the argument and conclude the argument is not sound 'cause the person making the argument is such and such a thing.

Ding ding ding ding ding!!!

An ad hom fallacy is when YOU ATTACK THE PERSON, NOT THE ARGUMENT. I knew I could count on someone to get this. Someone disagreeing with you is not an ad hom. Someone saying that there is a hole in your scholarship is not an ad hom. If a person's scholarship is faulty, they should be notified, if they care anything about the learning they're recieving.

To be blunt; I don't care what one is or not! I just know it bugs the hell out of me to see other people repeatedly talking about them!

I'm with you, Mon.

Onto the other replies...

[_Sam Harris]

It is an unwarranted attack on the opponent, that is the attack has little to no relevancy on the logic of the argument and/or insufficent evidentiary support has been made to support and justify the attack and so the attack may be false, and/or has little to no bearing on the logic of the argument. That's when it is fallacious.

If the attack is relevant to the logic in the argument, and justified it isn't fallacious.

Okay, so why is "ad hom" constantly being thrown out when it's pointed out to certain posters on both sides of the evidence thread that they either didn't provide what they said they would, or they might not be completely right on a subject?

Disagreement is not ad hom. Me telling you that the elevator doesn't go to the top floor and that your discussion skills suck is...which I don't think about anyone here, FTR...

[_Sam Harris]

An ad hominem can be a lot of things, I think, but on this board is most often in the form of a personal attack on scholarship. For instance, I'm sure we've all read Kevin telling JAK he gets his information from skeptic and anti-religion blogs, etc...
Or when Jersey Girl says someone get's their information from some sort of dubious source... or when someone like DCP labels a book like NMKMH as a historical novel, and its author an anti-mormon... those, in my opinion, are ad hominems. They don't address the substance, rather the person making the claim.

Ok, now I'm going to have to ask you to quote this and provide the link. Because unless I've missed it, criticism of scholarship is not ad hom. If there are no opposing viewpoints, then there is essentially no discussion.

[_marg]

It is an unwarranted attack on the opponent, that is the attack has little to no relevancy on the logic of the argument and/or insufficent evidentiary support has been made to support and justify the attack and so the attack may be false, and/or has little to no bearing on the logic of the argument. That's when it is fallacious.

If the attack is relevant to the logic in the argument, and justified it isn't fallacious.

Okay, so why is "ad hom" constantly being thrown out when it's pointed out to certain posters on both sides of the evidence thread that they either didn't provide what they said they would, or they might not be completely right on a subject?

Disagreement is not ad hom. Me telling you that the elevator doesn't go to the top floor and that your discussion skills suck is...which I don't think about anyone here, FTR...

Did I say "disagreement" was ad hom? You are arguing a strawman.

If you have a problem with why ad homs are being thrown out, give an example that you disagree with of one thrown out.

[_Sam Harris]

This thread is not to nitpick other threads. But one outsider to that particular thread has said what I've been thinking for a while. The word is being thrown out too easily. We're not going through another week of dissecting that thread.

If your person is being attacked, then by all means cry ad hom. But if someone accuses you of going to what they percieve as a hate site, that doesn't mean that you're a bad person, and that is not an ad hom.

[_Sam Harris]

I asked this question not so that the proverbial mannequin could have his hair removed strand by strand (so let's not go there), but so that a consensus could be reached on what an ad hom is...so that the word is not constantly being thrown around, and the interesting discussion can continue.

No...I'm not going back through that thread to provide any examples. You can say that I'm throwing out bombs if you like. When I watch a week go by with that same behavior being undertaken, I see that such an endeavor is fruitless. People will see what they want to see.

ad ho·mi·nem /æd ˈhɒmənəm‑ˌnɛm, ɑd-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ad hom-uh-nuhm‑nem, ahd-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Compare ad feminam.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: < L: lit, to the man]

If you use definition one, then many folks on that thread have done this. If you use definition two, I don't see that as much. You can't tell me that only one person went into that discussion biased. Everyone has their beliefs, everyone draws their own conclusions. No Marg, I'm not providing examples. We all have our beliefs. What I do not see is a great deal of attacks against persons. Once again, saying there's a hole in someone's argument is not the same as saying there's a hole in someone's head through which their intellect is leaking out.

Now, if we want to change the definition of ad hom to mean "whoever disagrees with me", your assertions of straw men could be percieved as such...but I see that as just your personal opinion, and it doesn't really matter to me.

straw man
–noun 1. a mass of straw formed to resemble a man, as for a doll or scarecrow.
2. a person whose importance or function is only nominal, as to cover another's activities; front.
3. a fabricated or conveniently weak or innocuous person, object, matter, etc., used as a seeming adversary or argument (in other words, I've created something out of nothing for making the observation that people are crying "ad hom" a great deal when asking to provide proof....wow!): The issue she railed about was no more than a straw man.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1585–95]