|
07 Jan 03 - 01:17 PM (#860807) Subject: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: John Hardly Here's a chance for some of you who are more in touch with (actually remember) the details of your Philosophy/Logic/Debate classes and readings to share your pet peaves as regards what passes for logical discussion both here and in the public arena these days. F'rinstance, I think the term "Ad hominem" is widely abused these days. Now, this is my understanding mind you, but when a politician "attacks" another politician for his voting record, that is not truly an ad hominem attack (in fact, is arguably quite the opposite). All ad hominems are red herrings but not all red herrings are ad hominem. My understanding is that in order for an arguement to be deemed "illogical" by virtue (can illogic be "virtuous"? ...I digress) of being ad hominem, the criticism of person (the hominem) on the other side would be unrelated to the question at hand. Similarly, all personal attacks are not properly ad hominem arguements. Sometimes the issue actually is the person's character or behavior and to bring it up may not be useful, but it is not an ad hominem attack (which again is a specific term regarding logic). All right, that was a bit of opinion (whether I'm actually right or wrong is open for debate -- what isn't open for debate on the mudcat?).... ...here's a related question. What is the proper terminology when referring to the illogic illustrated by the Einstein bumper sticker wherein he is quoted as say that one cannot simultaneously prepare for war and peace? It's sort of like ad hominem in reverse -- that is, it lends the weight of who Einstein is (a brilliant physicist/mathmetician) to a question not in his field of expertise. The bumper sticker may be true, but not necessarily because Einstein said it. |
|
07 Jan 03 - 01:19 PM (#860810) Subject: RE: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: John Hardly peeves (like mizpelling) |
|
07 Jan 03 - 01:22 PM (#860813) Subject: RE: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: MMario Isn't that actually a derivation of one of the Laws of Motion? |
|
07 Jan 03 - 02:41 PM (#860870) Subject: RE: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: catspaw49 Your "debate" will not generate much from me as I think you are correct. As for the related question, I'm not aware of any term for that and I'd be interested in knowing that one exists as it's a phenomenom we see a lot. I can add that an an ad hominy attack is one where you throw grits at the sumbitch....... Spaw |
|
07 Jan 03 - 03:01 PM (#860885) Subject: RE: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: GUEST,Q Had to dig into the Webster's here. 1. Appealing to feelings of prejudice rather than intellect. 2. marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made. Yep, a lot of that going around. Cure- 1. Don't listen to politicians. 2. Don't read BS posts. Unfortunately, I don't have the will power. |
|
07 Jan 03 - 04:07 PM (#860931) Subject: RE: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: GUEST,herc >>Similarly, all personal attacks are not properly ad hominem arguements. Sometimes the issue actually is the person's character or behavior and to bring it up may not be useful, but it is not an ad hominem attack (which again is a specific term regarding logic).<< In law, a standard phrase is "Bias is always relevant," or "Credibility is always relevant." Therefore the frequent admissibility of prior convictions relevant to moral corruption or credibility. This is not quite your point, though. It seems to be no more than "legal ad hominem." Or one might say "You should understand where he's coming from, since both of his parents died in that war." "Constructive ad hominem" ? |
|
07 Jan 03 - 04:49 PM (#860970) Subject: RE: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: GUEST There are a number of good websites online to explain it all for you. Try here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ It has several examples of different sorts of ad hominem arguments. |
|
07 Jan 03 - 07:04 PM (#861091) Subject: RE: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: Jim Dixon I guess you'd have to call that bumper sticker "appeal to authority." At least that's the English term I've heard. I don't know if there's a Latin equivalent. The reader is supposed to be persuaded that the statement is more likely to be true because Einstein said it, than if some unknown person said it. In science, who said anything is supposed to be irrelevant. You don't prove that relativity is true by demonstrating that Einstein was a genius. You prove it by examining the evidence, and the logic of the way the evidence is interpreted. For those of us who don't know how to interpret the evidence, we have to trust somebody. I think relativity is true because my physics professor said so, and I don't think he's the kind of person who would lie or could be easily deceived. The Nazis fell into the "ad hominem" trap by assuming that relativity couldn't be true because Einstein was a Jew. Good thing, too, because it prevented them from developing the atom bomb. (Or so I've heard.) In science, experiments are supposed to be repeatable by anyone who has the right equipment. Repeating the experiment and getting the same results confirms the theory. In law, the kinds of events that are discussed in trials are often not repeatable. You can't rerun a car accident to see who was at fault. So you have to rely on witnesses (or not, if the witnesses aren't credible). The character of the witnesses certainly is relevant. In politics, practically any statement you hear is about the aggregate behavior of thousands, perhaps millions of people. What does it mean to say a nation is preparing for war? Certainly, within any large population, some people are preparing for war while others are preparing for peace. Even within a government, different agencies may be pursuing different ends. I'd be very surprised if this weren't true. Politicians make their living by oversimplifying the case. |
|
07 Jan 03 - 07:11 PM (#861095) Subject: RE: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: Amos Relativity had little to do with the development of the atomic bomb. An ad hominem argument (as a fallacy) is one which seeks to discredit the speaker of an argument rather than the merit of the argument itself. If the character of a person is one of the _substantive arguments_ bearing on a debate, as in a court case, than discussion of his character is not, in this sense, an ad hominem argument, but rather an argument in res hominem, about the subject of the person. If you asserted that the person's lawyer was a weaselly son of a bitch who should not be believed for two nanoseconds and who would sell his mother for the price of a beer --- _that_ would be an ad hominem argument. A |
|
07 Jan 03 - 10:33 PM (#861285) Subject: RE: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: mack/misophist In re Einstein, qua war & peace: "Walk softly and carry a big stick." TR |
|
07 Jan 03 - 10:55 PM (#861296) Subject: RE: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: Thomas the Rhymer |
|
08 Jan 03 - 12:46 PM (#861665) Subject: RE: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: Blues=Life As an old Logic Professor, I can tell you that the Argument Against the Person (Argumentum as Hominem) takes three forms. The "ad hominem abusive" is a response to an argument that takes the form of verbally abusing the first person. This is the form that most recogonise. (Don't listen to him, he's a weasel!) The "ad hominem circumstantial" is the attempt by the respondent to discredit the opponent's argument by alluding to certain circumstance that affect the opponent. By doing so, the rspondent hopes to show that the opponent is predisposed to argue the way he or she does, and should therefore not be taken seriously. (Mr. X is wealthy, so we don't need to listen to his argument about tax reform, because his program will benefit him more than most.) Although you may benefit from a situation, that doesn't mean you can't think logically about that situation. Finally, "tu quoque" is the "you, too", or "two wrongs make a right" fallacy. (Your argument cannot be taken seriously because you are no better than I.) The Appeal to Authority is the Argumentum ad Verecundiam. It is a variety of the argument from authority and occurs when the cited authority is not qualified to address the issue in question (i.e., the Einstein example.) Many thanks to Hurley's "A Concise Introduction to Logic", which was my favorite text when I was teaching, and from who I just got most of the above information. Blues |
|
08 Jan 03 - 12:48 PM (#861670) Subject: RE: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: GUEST You can also get all that information in a nutshell, at the website I posted above. |
|
08 Jan 03 - 12:55 PM (#861675) Subject: RE: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: catspaw49 I'm beginning to think the ad hominy approach is the best.......... Spaw |
|
08 Jan 03 - 01:18 PM (#861691) Subject: RE: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: Amos The ad hominy is just too gritty for most of the soft-backed debaters, though! Mebbe we should try the ad barbecue tactic -- he must make a good President 'cuz he likes the right kind of food! A |
|
08 Jan 03 - 01:33 PM (#861714) Subject: RE: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: GUEST,nother guest Argumentum ad Verecundiam was pretty hard to get to on the site, Guest, and finally answers the specific question. We all have google, why wouldn't you just answer the straightforward question? |
|
08 Jan 03 - 01:36 PM (#861718) Subject: RE: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: Thomas the Rhymer So, what happens when the lies become apparent as such, and the personal attacks and suspicions, which follow the victim like a pack of baying hounds after a fox, evaporate into the thin air from whence they came? Do the vipers and gossiping mobs get due process? Do they sit around and wait for the inevitable precision of the revenging angel? ;^) Or does life just return to 'normal' until a new 'whipping boy' and a fresh new vendetta, breathes much needed life into insipid and impotent men? Hmmmmmmmm? ttr (laughing maniacally as the room suddenly clears...) |
|
08 Jan 03 - 08:17 PM (#862118) Subject: RE: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: GUEST,leeneia John Hardly invited us to share our pet peeves re logical discussion. One of my pet peeves is the fake if-then construction, which often occurs in literary criticism or art history. Example: But if Shakespeare was the greatest dramatist of his era, then Van Eyck was its greatest painter. Obviously there is no real if-then dependence here, it just sounds well-reasoned. |
|
08 Jan 03 - 08:25 PM (#862127) Subject: RE: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: Amos Actually there is a knowing use for that construction, but it is invisible and tacit; the concept is that "if you look at things from the perspective that admits A, then you will see the reasonablesness or rightness of also saying B". It is purely rhetorical, of course, and not in fact a logical proposition at all. A |
|
08 Jan 03 - 08:42 PM (#862141) Subject: RE: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: open mike thought this discussion was about homonyms words that sound alike as opposed to synonyms and other types of nyms...which is not NIMH's national institute of mental Health.. |
|
08 Jan 03 - 10:13 PM (#862195) Subject: RE: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: Blues=Life My favorite: God is Love. Love is Blind. Ray Charles is Blind. Ergo, Ray Charles is God. Not really valid TECHNICALLY, but at times, it's hard to argue with! *G* Blues |
|
08 Jan 03 - 10:39 PM (#862208) Subject: RE: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: Amos B+L, I must demur -- I find it very easy to argue with!! :>) A |
|
08 Jan 03 - 11:26 PM (#862232) Subject: RE: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: John Hardly I am ass-less... ...too much laughter! Blues+Life, that is too funny! Let me try one... God is Just I am just lazy I am Ray Charles. Ok. that didn't work too well. And just when you thought there was no hominey on the mudcat. |
|
09 Jan 03 - 07:48 AM (#862429) Subject: RE: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: Blues=Life Amos, I agree, it is easy to argue with. But when you listen to the man sing Georgia On My Mind, you just know that God is listening too. Blues |
|
09 Jan 03 - 10:57 AM (#862612) Subject: RE: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: Amos Quite right B=L; a proposition that transcends logic of all known kinds. (It occurs to me that one of the things that often defeats logic, as in PR and politics, is heavy packaging of multiple thoughts and meanings into a single phrase or statement. And boy, that "Georgia" is so rich with layers and overtones of meaning that only a complete asshole would want to parse it logically! I am, myself, as is well known here on the Cat, only a half-ass hole!) John Hardly, I LOVE your failed syllogism!! :>) A |
|
09 Jan 03 - 11:04 AM (#862631) Subject: RE: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: Blues=Life John, you wrote "All ad hominems are red herrings but not all red herrings are ad hominem." In fact, both of these are examples of informal fallacies, but they are different animals. A red herring is a fallacy that occurs when the arguer divert the attention of the reader or listener by addressing a number of extraneous issues and ends by presuming that some conclusion has been established. (It comes from a procedure used to train hunting dogs to follow a scent. A red herring (or bag of them) is dragged across the trail with the aim of leading the animal astray. Red herrings have an especially potent scent, caused in part by the smoking process used to preserve them.) Again, thanks to Hurley. Blues |
|
09 Jan 03 - 11:11 AM (#862643) Subject: RE: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: John Hardly Blues, you of course are right (and I appreciate your input --it's made this an interesting thread, and the learning experience for me that I hoped it would). What I meant by the statement you quoted was a weak reference to the old woodsman's adage that "all Birches are Beeches but not all Beeches are Birches", a phrase that has come to mean... .....well, you get the drift. And the comparison I was making was that, in the same manner in which the red herring tries to confuse an issue by bringing up issues not related to the question -- the ad hominem that attacks a man's character rather than addressing the issue does much the same fuctinally speaking. I promise not to write a book *BG*. |
|
09 Jan 03 - 01:57 PM (#862852) Subject: RE: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: GUEST,herc Wait a minute. WHO is dragging the bag of red herrings?? A conspirator after the fact? |
|
09 Jan 03 - 02:06 PM (#862862) Subject: RE: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: GUEST,herc Oh, duh. I just read it again. Training. . Never mind. |
|
09 Jan 03 - 02:46 PM (#862917) Subject: RE: BS: OfHominems&Herrings From: Thomas the Rhymer And thus... the red herring has nothing to do with the drama at hand, the intent of the training, or the manifest purpose... but is the primal distraction of honest instincts... "The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things: Of shoes- and ships- and sealing wax- Of cabbages- and kings— And why the sea is boiling hot- And whether pigs have wings." |