Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
May 27, 2010 at 10:02 pm (This post was last modified: May 27, 2010 at 10:23 pm by The_Flying_Skeptic.)
Have you ever been accused of an ad hominem by a creationist just because you added your foul opinion of creationists at the end of a rebuttal to one of their arguments? Lately I've been arguing with Tiberius and he is now accusing me of ad hominems in the same way many creationists do. We are having the discussion at the Beware of Belivers (Dedicated to Tiberius) thread on the meaning of ad homimens, but I think the discussion merits its own thread.
Here are some excerpts of our discussion:
(May 27, 2010 at 6:53 am)Tiberius Wrote:
(May 26, 2010 at 10:01 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: Again, you are not being charitable, instead you're finding out ways to rule out my definition rather than seeing the obvious exception to my definition. so much for some guy that got accepted to cambridge. lol
Wow. Nice ad hominem. *claps*
(May 27, 2010 at 4:00 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: an ad hominem is not an insult. an ad hominem is a type of argument. My insult to your character was not an argument or a supporting part of my argument.
example of ad hominem
you should not believe that the earth revolves around the sun because Nicholas Copernicus was an infidel.
explanation: as you can see, the argument uses an irrelevant fact about Nicholas Copernicus to try to discredit his hypothesis that the earth revolves around the sun. I did not use any irrelevant derogatory facts about you to try to discredit your arguments.
example of a statement (insult)
Nicholas Copernicus is an infidel. so much for NIcholas copernicus being an infidel.
wiki : "An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person"), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.[2]"
i forgot to mention that you also used a straw man argument against my position on the thread when accusing me of defending the position that life isn't created from scratch until biologists create matter from nothing .
Tiberius's response:
(May 27, 2010 at 7:40 pm)Tiberius Wrote: An ad hominem attack isn't just an insult, you are correct. However, it is an ad hominem to attack an opponent personally rather than attacking the argument, which you have done (both in the original thread and here).
I also didn't use a strawman; perhaps it is you who needs the definition, not I. My assertion was a hypothetical, not an argument, nor was it an attack of a position you do not hold. I merely stated that given your current meanderings about the meaning of certain words and their use in science, I wouldn't be surprised to find you asserting the same kinds of things when they do eventually create life "from scratch".
Again, you use ad hominems by attempting to belittle my character again and again in your response. Ad hominem can be used through implication, I hope you realise. The given examples on Wikipedia aren't the definitive examples of how every ad hominem should be. If you attack the character of a person, and by doing so make an implication on their arguments (as you did by referring to 'philosophy and debate' and saying you had 'better post a definition'), you are making an ad hominem.
my response:
(May 27, 2010 at 8:45 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: i attack the argument and, just as you do, add a snide remark. PZ Myers attacks an argument and adds his foul opinion of creationists on his blog many a time and theists, just as you are doing, claim he only uses ad hominems (incorrectly too since ad hominems means the whole argument is based on an ad hominem, my statement about 'so much for cambridge' or 'better post a definition' are irrelevant to the argument and people can decide whether or not they feel that way too).
I can entertain (or maybe even agree) that an ad hominem may be used through implication but then I might as well accuse you of ad hominems
the first thing you said on the thread:
Quote:Creation of anything from scratch violates the conservation of energy...that is, energy cannot be created or destroyed. It's a pretty simple thing to understand; you just failed to do that.
was very belittling. You're the one that came into the thread assuming I meant 'from scratch' meant 'from nothing' which is obviously against the law of conservation of energy: you came into the thread and distorted my position into a straw man.
Quote:Perhaps a bit more thought should go into your posts next time
another ad hominem on your part: you imply that i don't put much thought into my posts. I do, but you refuse to be charitable and you continue to treat me as if i was stupid.
what have you experienced with ad hominems? has anyone ever incorrectly accused you of an ad hominem? what do you think about implicit ad homimens? is there a spectrum of ad hominems?
"so much for some guy that got accepted to cambridge."
"Perhaps a bit more thought should go into your posts next time"
I'm no debate expert by any means.. It seems to me the first quote has nothing directly relatable to the conversation and would be a character attack, It also implies stupidity
The second one, IMO relates directly to the conversation being within the context of of posting and ad homniem. It does also imply stupidity or thoughtless ness
I wouln't classify the second as ad hominem because while it attacks the person it also attacks the arguement, whereas the first is completely off topic and is the focus rathe than the arguement [/2cents]
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
May 28, 2010 at 4:37 am (This post was last modified: May 28, 2010 at 4:38 am by Violet.)
Literally... a thing that is ad hominem is 'of a person/to a person'. It's latin in origin (to my knowledge)... and I should appreciate to know if we are discussing colloquial or differing definitions as to what 'ad hominem' means (so that a sleepy girl might properly know what we're talking about).
Are we using colloquial language or being literalists? Colloquially, it is often ('incorrectly') loosely defined as an insult to one's person... though as it can be as easily used in a positive light, this does neither always hold to be true nor even tend to be true. In example... an ad hominem support for an argument might occur like so: Bother Maybel believes the Earth is flat... and since he is a Brother: he must be right. Similarly, an ad hominem attack of an argument might occur like so: Brother Maybel believes the Earth is flat... and since he is a Brother: he must be wrong. It should be noted that neither of these positions are based on logic... but almost certainly in some way relate to an emotion or trust/distrust in a thing (if trust is not an emotion).
Further... it should be noted that this is only in reference to a person making an assertion (and that assertion being made into an argument with a thing's perceived status of trustworthiness (or some other emotional influence) to support it (it can indeed be used alongside other arguments without damaging them, and is not necessarily incorrect (especially if a thing's status specifically relates to a point... such as a biologist's opinion on biology being considered more trustworthy than a scientologist's.))
It is often frowned upon in philosophical circles... and often comes somewhat 'disguised' in many forms (IE: Arguments from authority and establishment)... so that the argument's status as an ad hominem (or even that wether it happen to be an argument relating to a person, thing, or substance changes not the argument's weakness) often goes unnoticed whilst the more specific argument is refuted (and from which point several other ad hominems tend to surface, in what I've seen of debates at least).
It certainly merits it's own thread... and the philosophy subforum will be prettier for it Please note if I've made an oopsie: I am half asleepy as of posting this...
An Ad Hom is when you either attack or compliment, etc., the person rather than their argument in a debate/discussion (which has nothing to do with the argument itself) basically.
An ad hominem is a kind of logical fallacy. It consists of trying to discredit a person's argument by trying to discredit the person. It isn't the same thing at all as simply insulting the person.
By way of illustration, lets say that I go completely insane, and become a supporter of young earth creationism. I continue to contribute to atheist forums.org from my bed in the psychiatric ward; my posts are deeply unhinged.
2 possible responses:
1. Caeacilian is certifiably insane. That makes his arguments in favour of yec wrong.
2. Caecilian's arguments for yec are wrong because of x, y, and z. And btw, Caecilian, you're a fucking fruitbat.
The first response is an ad hominem. Its fallacious to say that my creationist views are wrong because I'm insane. The second response is not an ad hominem- its just an insult.
Strictly speaking, I don't think that either Adrian or TFS have used ad hominems. But they have been trading insults. Which isn't very productive.
He who desires to worship God must harbor no childish illusions about the matter but bravely renounce his liberty and humanity.
Mikhail Bakunin
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything
Friedrich Nietzsche
May 28, 2010 at 2:50 pm (This post was last modified: May 29, 2010 at 3:29 am by Violet.)
(May 28, 2010 at 6:18 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: An Ad Hom is when you either attack or compliment, etc., the person rather than their argument in a debate/discussion (which has nothing to do with the argument itself) basically.
EvF
Close... It is when a conclusion is drawn from some attribute of a person (who made an assertion), rather than when a conclusion is drawn from other parts of the argument. The person is also a part of the argument, ie: If a man has been to the moon, and he asserts that it is indeed made of green cheese... the argument will be seen as stronger than if an insane person were to assert that the moon is just a big rock... it need not even be 'right'. Thus: the person who makes an argument has everything to do with it.
It is when the attribute from which the conclusion is drawn has no 'sound' relation to the argument that it is fallacious. Take for example: A candle will light a dark room, therefore that glass of water I just drank is filled with poison. While it is not necessarily untrue (especially if we are incorrect about how a candle's ability to light a dark room relates to the glass of water being filled with poison... as might occur if it was by candlelight in a dark room that the poison was made)... it remains fallacious unless it relates to the situation at hand (I am implying it to be true. There is another definition of 'fallacy' that relates only to validity, of course, that I am excluding for the time being, as ad hominem arguments are by necessity valid). An ad hominem argument is not necessarily fallacious, as I noted above: the argument of the person making the claim is sound if it relates to the conclusion (however sillily, wrongly, laughably, gaily, whathaveyouy).
(May 28, 2010 at 6:53 am)Caecilian Wrote: An ad hominem is a kind of logical fallacy. It consists of trying to discredit a person's argument by trying to discredit the person. It isn't the same thing at all as simply insulting the person.
By way of illustration, lets say that I go completely insane, and become a supporter of young earth creationism. I continue to contribute to atheist forums.org from my bed in the psychiatric ward; my posts are deeply unhinged.
2 possible responses:
1. Caeacilian is certifiably insane. That makes his arguments in favour of yec wrong.
2. Caecilian's arguments for yec are wrong because of x, y, and z. And btw, Caecilian, you're a fucking fruitbat.
The first response is an ad hominem. Its fallacious to say that my creationist views are wrong because I'm insane. The second response is not an ad hominem- its just an insult.
It actually may not be fallacious to say that your creationist views are wrong because you are insane... but only if one has defined said words in a way so as to make it true that your creationist views are wrong because you are insane. But it is indeed an ad hominem argument
The latter part of 2 is indeed just an insult... though the former sentence's arguments x, y, and z could all be ad hominem arguments
Quote:Strictly speaking, I don't think that either Adrian or TFS have used ad hominems. But they have been trading insults. Which isn't very productive.
Bolded, because I think you are right, and that this deserves more emphasis. By the way, Caecillian: you're a human!
Please note if I've made an oopsie: I am half asleepy as of posting this... 
