26 replies to this topic

[Benjamin McGuire]

This term has been thrown around a lot lately, so I thought I would provide my definition for the notion (with some examples).

Wikipedia defines it like this:

Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy, more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.

My view of this fallacy reduces this issue to three interconnected points.

1: Ad Hominem is a way of reasoning. This means, ultimately, that an argument or a discussion involving some kind of reasoning process has to be the context of the ad hominem fallacy. Insults, name calling, and other sorts of personal attacks - if they are not used to further an argument or as part of the reasoning, are not an ad hominem attack. Calling someone a moron on a message forum, calling someone to repentence, insisting that they are liberal, fundamentalist, socialist, communist, atheist, anti-mormon - if it isn't used to reflect on or dismiss a point of view or an argument, it isn't ad hominem. (It may still be highly inappropriate, way out of line, and so on). The moment we move to you are wrong because you are an X, is the moment that line has been crossed (and sometimes this is an implicit statement).

2: Ad Hominem is a "logical" fallacy. When we talk about ad hominem attacks, unlike with polemics or apologetics, the truth of propositions doesn't have an impact on our identification of the fallacy. If, in a discussion on apologetics, someone asserts that everything written by FARMS apologists is an ad hominem attack, this charge isn't itself an ad hominem. The fact that it isn't a factually accurate statement doesn't make it an instance of ad hominem - it just means that the charge is wrong. And an appropriate response is to show how it is wrong (and not to simply label it as ad hominem itself).

3: Ad hominem is the argument from irrelevancy. If the reasons invoked are relevant to the issue - even if they focus on the person making the argument, then they are not usually an ad hominem attack. If the issues being reasoned about have absolutely nothing to do with the issue, then it can be identified as an ad hominem fallacy.

Examples (which I have stolen from this book because it was easier than trying to produce them myself).

The first couple of examples follow the simple form:

Person 1 is claiming Y.
Person 1 is (or is doing) X.
Therefore, Y is not true.

My opponent suggests that lowering taxes will be a good idea – this is coming from a woman who eats a pint of Ben and Jerry’s each night!

The fact that the woman loves her ice cream, has nothing to do with the lowering of taxes, and therefore, is irrelevant to the argument. (Unless, of course, the tax is one that specifically impacts just ice cream or even more narrowly, just Ben and Jerry's, when it might become relevant.)

Example 2

Tony wants us to believe that the origin of life was an “accident”.  Tony is a godless SOB who has spent more time in jail then in church, so the only information we should consider from him is the best way to make license plates.

Tony may be a godless SOB. Perhaps he did spend more time in the joint than in church. But all this is irrelevant to his argument or truth of his claim as to the origin of life. Sometimes the third part of this formula can simply be inferred. If someone makes a claim and the response is "Did you take your meds this morning" - with the intention of dismissing the claims as being crazy, that is ad hominem (the wiki article has some examples of this referring just to women).

The next couple of examples follow a slightly different form in which motives are presented):

Person 1 is claiming Y.
Person 1 has a vested interest in Y being true.
Therefore, Y is false.

Example 3

Salesman: This car gets better than average gas mileage, and is one of the most reliable cars according to Consumer Reports.
Customer: I doubt it – you obviously just want to sell me that car.

The fact that the salesmen has a vested interest in selling you the car, does not mean that he is lying. He may be, but this is not something you can conclude solely on his interests. It is reasonable to assume that salespeople sell the products and services they do because they believe in them. Claiming that the church's (or church leaders) perspectives are bad only because they want to create tithe paying adherents is an example of an ad hominem argument.

Example 4

Of course your minister says he believes in God. He would be unemployed otherwise.

The fact atheist ministers are about as in demand as hookers who, “just want to be friends”, does not mean that ministers believe in God just because they need a job. Likewise, claiming that those individuals who work for the Church or BYU are saying what they are saying just to keep their job, is an example of ad hominem. But the line here can be blurred a bit as sometimes motivation is a valid line of inquiry - particularly if it is raised by the other party.

Obviously, as the bias or conflict of interest becomes more and more relevant to the argument, it becomes less of a fallacy and more as a legitimate question to that motive (its good in these cases to be upfront about personal motivations when possible). If a man is accused of having an affair, of course he is going to deny it. But, the only situation he might be more inclined to deny that an affair happened is if he hadn't really had an affair. And this is why these arguments are often considered ad hominem. The narrowness of the ad hominem charge only applies here in cases where the original premise is based on a more broadly recognized issues - if it is all about an appeal to personal authority or experience, that can swing the ideas away from ad hominem. However, to use this to attack while avoiding other kinds of evidence that is being presented is often ad hominem (unless again, as I note, bias is a part of the original discussion). If the guy accused of having an affair can produce evidence that he wasn't there, and the response is that of course he would deny it, that is ad hominem.

The next two examples show how this works in guilt by association.

Person 1 states that Y is true.
Person 2 also states that Y is true, and person 2 is (or does) X.
Therefore, person 1 must also be (or be doing) X.

Example 5

Delores is a big supporter for equal pay for equal work. This is the same policy that all those extreme feminist groups support. Extremists like Delores should not be taken seriously – at least politically.

Dismissing Delores as an extreme feminist simply because she supports a policy that many people also support, is ad hominem.

Example 6

Pol Pot, the Cambodian Maoist revolutionary, was against religion, and he was a very bad
man. Frankie is against religion, therefore, Frankie, too, must be a very bad man.

The fact that Pol Pot and Frankie share one particular view does not mean they are identical in other ways unrelated, specifically, being a very bad man. Pol Pot was not a bad man because he was against religion, he was a bad man for his genocidal actions. Of course, there are exceptions to this - if the shared trait is relevant to the article. If instead of comparing the views on religion, we compared the two people based on a genocidal trait - that is, Polt Pot was a genicidal maniac, and was a very bad man, and Frankie also is a genocidal maniac and is thus must also a very bad man might not be such a stretch. It is more of a publicly accepted premise that being genocidal makes you bad, as opposed to having anti-religious tendencies that make you bad.

The next two show the personal inconsistency form of the fallacy.

Person 1 is claiming that Y is true, but person 1 is acting as if Y is not true.
Therefore, Y must not be true.

Example 7

Helga: You should not be eating that... it has been scientifically proven that eating fat burgers are no good for your health.
Hugh: You eat fat burgers all the time, so that can’t be true.

It doesn’t matter, to the truth claim of the argument at least, if Helga follows her own advice or not. While it might appear that the reason she does not follow her own advice is because she doesn’t believe it’s true, it could also be that those fat burgers are just too darn irresistible.

Example 8

Jimmy Swaggart argued strongly against sexual immorality, yet he has had several affairs with prostitutes, therefore, sexual immorality is acceptable.

The fact Jimmy Swaggart likes to play a round of bedroom golf with some local entrepreneurial ladies, is not evidence for sexual immorality in general, only that he is sexually immoral. (The exception to this, of course, is when he argues that his actions were in line with his sexual morality - and then it becomes a very relevant part of the discussion).


Ben M.

Edited by Benjamin McGuire, 29 June 2012 - 07:39 AM.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So, is claiming that "I need a source out side of LDS circles because LDS have a dog in the fight and our biased" an Ad hominem, or does it fall under that banner of it?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Yes it does fall under the banner of an ad hominem assertion.

This is sometimes a special case though because, as I noted in the other thread I started recently, this is almost a universally accepted practice in the study of religion. That has created spill-over into many arguments where it wouldn't be appropriate (even within the study of religions) but the fact that there is this basis for it tends to give it more credibility in some circles when it shouldn't. But there are probably some instances where it occurs and it may be at least responsible to recognize that it shouldn't be dismissed simply as an ad hominem assertion. Rather (to quote a bit more from the article I referenced in the other thread):

Quote

The argument against the legitimacy of the special pleading of the apologetic accounts is easy to make. Their hidden (apologetic) agenda typically takes one of two forms. A Schleiermacherian "fulfillment" type argues that a specific religion (usually Christianity) is the best species in the genus "religion." Its arguments are typically circular, presuming criteria that are drawn from the preferred tradition. A Barthian "exclusionary" type argues that a specific faith-tradition (usually Christianity) is not a member of the genus "religion." Its arguments are typically either false, in the cases in which what it finds as uniquely differentiating the preferred tradition (e.g. , only Christianity has a revelational basis) can be found in other faith traditions (e.g. Judaism and Islam), or special pleading, in the cases in which the hidden agenda is revealed when its proponents resort to personal testimony to warrant their claims (only the Christian revelation is the real one). Hence, skeptical accounts are to be preferred over "special pleading" in explaining religion.

Such an argument is sound but limited. Not all "believers' accounts" are or need be of these types. Further argument is necessary to vindicate the skeptical approach over the "irreducibility" approach or the "supernaturalist" account.

What does this mean? If we have to bear testimony - no matter how valid our own experiences are for rational decision making on our part, they don't make for good arguments - and they expose us to this kind of response which in that case simply isn't an ad hominem attack. On the other hand, if our arguments are based on widely recognized premises - if we use standard reasonable claims that are not based on an apologetic point of view, the charge that we are simply apologists is an ad hominem. It's an easy sound bite to make, but not necessarily a valid argument. Jack Welch did a lot of writing on chiasmus. Some of it is now dated a bit. But, just because he is LDS doesn't make his arguments invalid in a discussion about chiasmus in the Book of Mormon anymore than it invalidates the use of his arguments in the dozens and dozens of scholarly publications that reference his work on Chiasmus that have nothing to do with LDS beliefs or the Book of Mormon.

I hope this kind of clarifies it a bit. It is why, when discussing the Spalding theory, I am often (for the purpose of the discussion) simply willing to concede modern authorship. That removes my religious stake in the question and allows for us to discuss whether or not the Spalding theory can stand on its own merits, instead of being forced to appeal to the supernaturalistic argument for its support.

Ben M.

[William Schryver]

Excellent summary, Ben.  In fact, I think I will make your OP the standard source to which I link during future discussions on the meaning of "ad hominem".

[stemelbow]

There are those who are trying to collect instances of Ad hominem being exploited by LDS apologists.  Is gathering a list of, what seems to them, nasty examples of apologists saying harsh things a case of ad hominem?  

It seems the effort is to suggest LDS apologists forward ad hominem in argument.  Thus,If we gather all the examples we can muster that might be seen or construed as ad hominem then we effectively silence LDS apologetics for some people.  

[Benjamin McGuire]

Quote

There are those who are trying to collect instances of Ad hominem being exploited by LDS apologists.  Is gathering a list of, what seems to them, nasty examples of apologists saying harsh things a case of ad hominem?

Not at all. That would seem to be a very germane thing to such a discussion. Now, gathering a list and having that list contain only examples of ad hominem are two different things. The list might be riddled with incorrect identifications. But that won't make it an ad hominem attack either, it just makes them wrong.

Ad hominem is really a very narrow sort of fallacy, it isn't a huge umbrella to throw everything under. And if we are going to insist on getting people to accurately use these terms (ad hominem, polemic, apologetic, etc.), we need to be careful to use them appropriately ourselves.

Ben M.

[stemelbow]

Benjamin McGuire, on 29 June 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

Not at all. That would seem to be a very germane thing to such a discussion. Now, gathering a list and having that list contain only examples of ad hominem are two different things. The list might be riddled with incorrect identifications. But that won't make it an ad hominem attack either, it just makes them wrong.

Ad hominem is really a very narrow sort of fallacy, it isn't a huge umbrella to throw everything under. And if we are going to insist on getting people to accurately use these terms (ad hominem, polemic, apologetic, etc.), we need to be careful to use them appropriately ourselves.

Ben M.

Well shoot, I thought I might have been onto something.  It does appear the mob mentality has grown in that the mere mention of ad hominem associated with LDS apologetics turns a certain crowd into ravenous wolves basking in their own glory.  It seems they think they have proven their case by saying so and not much more.  

I guess we shall see.

[wenglund]

Very nice!!

I am not sure, though, that it will do much good since similar efforts in the past have proven unsuccessful.

Still, as Will indicated, it makes for a convenient reference for the future.

It may also be good to do the same for other informal fallacies that are commonly misunderstood, like: the argument from silence, begging the question, appeal to authority, and slippery slope; or fallacies that too often occur, such as: the fallacy of repetition, burden of proof, confusing correlation with causation, historians fallacy, solipsism (mind projection fallacy), psychologists fallacy, special pleading, cherry picking, thought-terminating cliche, poisoning the well, etc..

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[phaedrus ut]

The problem with determining what is or isn't  ad hominem is that it's completely subjective and the offending party will never agree that is what they are doing.   Also it's important to distinguish between the logical fallacy and just a personal attack.  The OED definition I think is a little more clear:

Quote

Definition of AD HOMINEM

1 (of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic

• attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain: vicious ad hominem attack

Phaedrus

[Somebodyz]

William Schryver, on 29 June 2012 - 07:36 AM, said:

Excellent summary, Ben.  In fact, I think I will make your OP the standard source to which I link during future discussions on the meaning of "ad hominem".

It's a pity this board, doesn't keep a section on some of these definitions. As this comes up time and again. How about it mods?

[Bob Crockett]

Ben, your definitions although technically correct are rather irrelevant and immaterial.  The average reader, including of academic material, isn't very well persuaded with the come-back that an argument is an ad hominem.  There are no rhetorical policemen to cry foul.  Even in such an area as the law, an attack on a witness's character or background is often or usually permissible.

Persons accused of making an ad hominem attack almost always deny it or point to some exception.

And, then, let's look at how the internet works.   An anonymous poster (or even one who is not, but whom nobody really knows) may buttress his argument with observations about their personal life:  "I'm a bishop."  "I was a bishop."  "I was faithful my entire life until I read Dr. Bushman."  "I am on the high council."  "I teach at the University."  And so forth and so on.   Do we question those assertions?  Especially for anonymous posters, who may be making up their persona from whole cloth, do we comment up them?  How many times do we have to hear Simon Southerton tell us that he was a bishop?  Or our own reelmormon here who reminds us that he is a 33-year-old bishop who teaches at the university?  If a poster or writer comments upon this material to establish his bona fides, wouldn't we all like to question those bona fides?   (Ed Decker lived in my stake and lots can be said about his real reasons for leaving the church.)

Let's take one of my favorite Semitic scholars, William Dever.   In his book, Does God Have a Wife?, he repeatedly remarks, both in the introductory material and throughout his book, that he doesn't believe in God and that he is a feminist.   If I'd like to criticize his book, and LDS scholars' reliance upon it, should I be precluded by the rhetorical police from commenting upon these assertions?  I understand I should further explain why being an atheist and feminist calls into question his work, but isn't this fair game?

I published in FARMS Review two MMM pieces, reviewing (and expanding) upon works of Will Bagley and Sally Denton.  In one of them, the editor added the phrase that the author I was reviewing had an agenda and that such colored his or her work.  (I agreed to the addition.)   Isn't that fair game, to question the motivations behind a commercial publication?

Grant Palmer sold a nice book claiming to be an insider to the LDS faith and then proceeded to rip it apart.  I happen to think that he is, indeed, an insider (along with thousands to millions of others).  Is it wrong to call into question his assertion that he is an "insider?"  (I have gone on record saying I did't like the tone of the attacks on him, but I've never questioned the substance of the better-known critiques.)

So, your rules of logic and rhetoric don't work.  When I'm standing in front of a jury arguing my case, I don't haul these rules out to denounce my opponent's position.  (Now, doesn't somebody have the right to come back and argue that I'm a lousy lawyer, or that my argument is clouded by the fact that I am a lawyer?)

Edited by Bob Crockett, 29 June 2012 - 11:20 AM.

[TAO]

"If, in a discussion on apologetics, someone asserts that everything written by FARMS apologists is an ad hominem attack, this charge isn't itself an ad hominem."

Ben, while this is technically correct, notice the difference between these that statement and this one:

"Things written by FARMS apologists are not trustworthy because FARMS apologists use ad-hominem attacks."

The ad-hominem is saying that the information is wrong simply because it is written by a FARMS apologist.  That is ad-hominem.  Ad-hominem is wherever you dismiss someones or somethings credibility based off of a rather small detail.  The fact that it was written by a FARMS apologist shouldn't be enough to dismiss the credibility of the papers.

The thing is, while the critics might be saying the first, they are implying the second (and some are stating the second outright), and so you could say they are second-degreeing ad-hominem.  Whether it's an appropriate ad-homimen or not (ad-hominem is not always a fallacy), is a totally different discussion.

As Bob Crockett said, agenda, and other details, are important to observe; not because they make the information any more right or wrong, but because they should make you more cautious.  At the same time, if you take the cautiousness too far, that is bad too.

Edited by TAO, 29 June 2012 - 11:03 AM.

[wenglund]

Bob Crockett, on 29 June 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

So, your rules of logic and rhetoric don't work.  When I'm standing in front of a jury arguing my case, I don't haul these rules out to denounce my opponent's position.  (Now, doesn't somebody have the right to come back and argue that I'm a lousy lawyer, or that my argument is clouded by the fact that I am a lawyer?)

Bob,

It is reasonable to expect that there would be some differences in procedures/rules for determining the guilt of a person in a case of law as contrasted from determining informally the logic of an argument in a public discussion. The stakes tend to much higher, particularly on a personal level, with the former than the latter. Few people now days will be imprisoned for life or receive the death penalty for committing a logical fallacy. So, let's try and keep things in perspective. This stated difference isn't a valid or sound reason to dismiss rules of logic and critical thinking as not applicable or not workable in general human discourse/debate.

Granted, the conventions of logic and critical thinking tend not to work generally in public discourse, in large part because of ignorance and stubbornness. However, this gives reason to educate and persuade people about the sensibleness and practical value of the conventions (as in the case here), rather than dismissing the conventions out of hand and throwing one's hands in the air in hopeless frustration.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bob Crockett]

wenglund, on 29 June 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

Granted, the conventions of logic and critical thinking tend not to work generally in public discourse, in large part because of ignorance and stubbornness. However, this gives reason to educate and persuade people about the sensibleness and practical value of the conventions (as in the case here), rather than dismissing the conventions out of hand and throwing one's hands in the air in hopeless frustration.

One has a limited time to grab the public's attention.   Either you challenge your opponent's character and background in an effective way as to cause people to question his ultimate conclusions, or you try to educate the public on the art of rhetoric.

John Maynard Keynes (Nixon:  "We are all Keynesians") was a notorious "swinger."   Those who are critical of him sometimes bring that up.   Fair game or no, I imagine that those who distrust Keynes' conclusions would find solace in his Epicurean lifestyle as a basis to ignore him.

[wenglund]

Bob Crockett, on 29 June 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:

One has a limited time to grab the public's attention.   Either you challenge your opponent's character and background in an effective way as to cause people to question his ultimate conclusions, or you try to educate the public on the art of rhetoric.

Yes, it is a choice, among other things, between short-term expediency/intellectual mediocrity, or long-term healthy evolving of minds. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bob Crockett]

I think the art of rhetoric and its rules a bunch of nonsense and hogwash.  Either you are an effective communicator or you are not.

[MAsh]

From Shaken Faith Syndrome:

   Those who claim that LDS scholars cannot be real scholars because of their affiliation with Mormonism commit two logical fallacies, the first of which is argumentum ad hominem (an argument against the man). This logical fallacy takes the following form: Person A argues position X. Person B claims that X cannot be true because Person A has bad breath. In the case of LDS critics, it is claimed that when an LDS scholar argues for an ancient Book of Mormon, his or her arguments are not valid because he or she is a Mormon. An ad hominem argument attacks the person rather than engaging the argument. [pg. 85]


LDS Apologists Engage in Ad Hominem
    As noted above, the ad hominem logical fallacy substitutes character assassination in place of actually engaging the arguments. If someone were to claim, for instance, that Bob’s political views on prison reform are wrong because he is bald (or gay, or Baptist, or a weight- lifter, etc.), this would typify an ad hominem fallacy. “The ad hominem fallacy is a fallacy of distraction. It diverts the attention of an audience to an irrelevancy in lieu of dealing with the substance of an argument.”44
    Critics frequently charge LDS apologists, and specifically FARMS scholars, with being mean and nasty in their responses to anti- Mormons. This, claim critics, amounts to ad hominem. Ad hominem, writes one LDS critic, “is pretty much stock-in-trade for Mormon apol- ogists.”45  FARMS, claims another critic, has “elevated” ad hominem “to a high art, and it is a primary weapon in its rhetorical arsenal.” FARMS’ persistence in resorting to ad hominem attacks “raises legitimate ques- tions about their moral character.”46  It is easier for FARMS to “attack the messenger,” writes yet another critic, “than to deal with the message. And that is the standard F.A.R.M.S. response: go ad-hominem and then look utterly shocked when someone points it out.”47   Commenting on FARMS’ reviews of one LDS critic, another critic wrote: “Reading the FARMS crap was pure torture—watching grown men calling names, and nothing more.”48   One young critic claims that “anyone who has observed FARMS’ methods marks how often they either resort to ad hominem attacks or side-step the real issues being discussed.”49 Not only are the critics wrong in the claim that FARMS scholars “side-step” or fail to “deal with” the arguments (which is easily demonstrated by actually reading the FARMS Review), but it also becomes quickly apparent, however, that most critics misunderstand the ad hominem fallacy and confuse it with intellectual history and rhetoric.
    A meta-discussion, for instance, refers to a discussion about a discussion—rather than the actual topic being discussed. Meta-discussions may engage the style or participants in the discussion. Intellectual history is a type of meta-discussion that explores the history of human thought, culture, expression, and those who discuss and write about various ideas. Some published LDS critics, for example, have claimed insider status or credentials (such as having held prominent LDS leader- ship or teaching positions) which supposedly give their arguments more authority. To investigate their claims of insider status or to examine their credentials, motives, or history relating to the relevant discussion is not ad hominem but rather an investigation into intellectual history.
   Biographies are types of intellectual histories. A biographer, for example, could write about John F. Kennedy, his education, his early political views, and his Catholic upbringing as well as how those factors may have influenced his political views as U.S. president. Such a biog- raphy would be an intellectual history of President Kennedy and could provide possible insights into the formulation of his presidential agenda. This meta-discussion could be distinctly separate from (or in addition to) actually assessing the merits of his political views. Writing or discussing this intellectual history would not constitute ad hominem. If, however, we were to claim that his political views were defective purely because President Kennedy was Catholic, then we would be engaging in ad hominem. When, in relatively rare instances, LDS apologists have exam- ined the claims of critics in regards to their supposed credentials or insider status, they are not—despite the cries of the critics—engaging in ad hominem attacks.
   Rhetoric is the art of persuasion. Scholars, historians, and even scientists engage in rhetoric with the purpose of convincing others that their view is the most correct. In the attempt to persuade others, numerous rhetorical devices, tools, or methods are often employed. This might include style (or the way in which discourse is presented) as well as appeals to emotion, reason, and even character or credentials. Analogies, metaphors, hyperbole, and wit (including irony, satire, parody, and even sarcasm) are all part of rhetorical style. Like food, movies, music, and clothing, rhetorical style and appreciation for types of humor is often a matter of taste. While some people, for instance, may feel that sarcasm or irony should not be utilized in scholarly debates, others appreciate a little humor—even sardonic humor—and many people find that humor is a useful teaching tool. Some LDS apologists utilize wit and irony in their arguments, whereas others do not.
   Most critics seem not to appreciate wit when it is directed at them or their anti-LDS claims; they frequently charge apologists who exercise humor as being mean, nasty, or vicious. The French have a saying that speaks to such complaints: “This animal is extremely vicious; when attacked it defends itself.” It is ironic that some of the anti-LDS who complain the loudest about LDS ad hominem (which, in almost all cases, actually refers to intellectual history or the use of rhetorical wit) have often made vile and derogatory statements about LDS apologists and Church leaders—statements that are untrue, offensive, and even profane.
   Critics often claim that mean-spirited remarks made by LDS apologists (which, if true, are relatively infrequent) are examples of ad hominem attacks. While it might be argued as to whether or not witty comments are mean-spirited, rudeness and bad etiquette have no bearing on the ad hominem fallacy. Ironically, the very charge of ad hominem against LDS apologists is generally a type of ad hominem attack in itself. In effect, some critics are arguing that LDS apologetic material should be dismissed because LDS apologists are mean and nasty (this is also an example of poisoning the well as noted earlier). It is certainly not impossible that some LDS apologists have committed the ad hominem fallacy (although I have yet to see evidence for such a fallacy among FARMS publications). To claim, however, that the “standard” FARMS response is ad hominem or that FARMS reviews are mere name-calling “and nothing more” is not only demonstrably false, but is really just a means of distracting attention away from actual apologetic arguments and evidence, and offers an actual example of the classic ad hominem fallacy. [pgs. 91-93]

[Benjamin McGuire]

TAO writes:

Quote

Ben, while this is technically correct, notice the difference between these that statement and this one:

This is true Tao. But they are two very different situations.

Edited by Benjamin McGuire, 29 June 2012 - 12:07 PM.

[Benjamin McGuire]

I think, for Bob Crocket, that you have badly misunderstood my purpose. The reason why we talk about logical fallacies is not because we are too terribly dead set on criticizing what someone else has written. As you point out, that can be a largely fruitless endeavor. The reason why we really want to become acquainted with the "rules of logic and rhetoric" as you put it, is so that we can become better communicators ourselves.

Ben M.

[Cobalt-70]

phaedrus ut, on 29 June 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

The problem with determining what is or isn't  ad hominem is that it's completely subjective and the offending party will never agree that is what they are doing.   Also it's important to distinguish between the logical fallacy and just a personal attack.  The OED definition I think is a little more clear:

So here's the dynamic which is going on:
1. Non-apologists accuse the polemicists within MI of using ad hominem attacks, having in mind the dictionary definition cited above, which means that the polemicist directs his attack guns toward the character, motives, beliefs, intelligence, or honesty of the author.
2. MI apologists and their cheerleeders say no, such attacks are not ad hominem, because they don't meet the technical definition of "ad hominem fallacy" used by logicians.

That justification rings hollow to me. It sounds like a technical argument--like arguing you didn't defraud the old widow because you never technically lied when you induced her to sign over to you her life savings. I'm also not very impressed by the "everybody is doing it" argument. Even if everyone in academia were always attacking everybody else's character, beliefs, honesty, sexual orientation, and hair color, then that doesn't mean that BYU professors, acting under the umbrella of an organization whose mission is supposed to be strengthening people's faith in Jesus Christ and fostering respect for Mormonism, should be doing the same.

Edited by Cobalt-70, 29 June 2012 - 12:59 PM.