ad hominem arguments

Remove all ads!

Iku, a part of logic is the premise. If a premise is false, then the logical argument is flawed. So truth has a lot to do with persuasive logical arguments. One of the advantages of logic and the analysis of arguments is you can find the roots of the argument and determine whether the premises of the argument are true or false.

As an example: Any agrument for christianity has a fundamental premise -- Jesus was the son of God. For some people this premise is true, for others it is false. In such a case, if the fundamental premise of the argument cannot be agreed upon then the argument itself cannot be resolved (except by ad hominem arguments).

 

Nakia, quite true that the appeal to authority can be an especially insidious fallacy.

But that leaves people like me, who just can't personally understand Gödel's incompleteness theorem, having to turn to an appeal to authority to back up our belief that Gödel's incompleteness theorem is true.

I think the way through the problem is to think hard about who counts as an authority. I have had endless run-ins with a community organization whose board I sit on over newspaper articles they've written relying on dubious Internet sources for their information. There are sites with reliable information out there and there are way more sites with unreliable information. For me, I think through credentials from bona fide agencies, academic qualifications, peer reviewed articles and trials, consistency with the knowledge I do have - and so on.

I think Nakia's point about the fallacy of the appeal to authority is that it can be an ad hominem arguement in reverse if not used carefully.

 

@T2Bruno: Yeah, that seems like it could work, it seems true enough.

Then, like you pointed out, it only leaves the question open what this 'truth' is that people talk about.

As far as persuasion is concerned, you only have to think about what the audience you direct your speech to is like, what they prefer, what they believe, what they think of as true.

Universal and absolute truths have no relevance if the people you're talking to have no knowledge or understanding of them, or if they think of such things as irrelevant, as many do when they're concerned of their daily lives. Truth has power only if it might change people's lives, until that moment you can argue for or against anything as much as you want. If nobody cares that the moon is made of cheese, which would make me the king of the 64th dimension, then nobody cares if it's true or not.

But trust is a different matter. Ad Hominem arguments are fallacies, because philosophy hasn't taken trust into account. If I trust what you say, you're still not an authority.

 

You need to realize that another word for "bias" is "opinion".....and any time you research an issue, you form an opinion. Everyone has a bias, which is OK. The only problem with this is when a person allows his bias to stand in the way of reason by refusing to acknowledge any information that doesn't agree with his point of view.

[ May 09, 2007, 21:49: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Thank you, revmaf, that is exactly what I mean.

Of course we are going to turn to Authority to prove or disprove things. But simply accepting someone as an authority without checking further is not logical. What proof does the Authority offer for his or her theory? What do other Authorities have to save about the theory?

This is where we (IMO) run into problems. We are all biased but that in itself does not mean our opinions are incorrect which is why ad hominem arguments should not be allowed.

I believe the world is round but I haven't flown or sailed around the world. I haven't been to outer-space so I rely on the Authority of those who have and other proof.

 

But where does the information end and the presenter's bias begin? Having seen multiple sites about the one incident in Mormon History, every article I found had a bias on one side or another. This bias, in turn, affects how the writer presents the information. In the end, don't these conflicting biases only seek to muddy the water further?

 

Only if the writer is trying to muddy the waters. Writers who are trying to muddy the waters instead of discussing the facts usually do so because they either don't know enough about the subject or because they have something to hide. In any case, that's what bibliographies are for. You can always just go straight to the primary source and make up your own mind. If you are talking about the events I think you are talking about, I can already tell you that all the primary sources are available on-line (I've looked at them, myself). A lot of articles will even provide links to their sources (when available or known) in their bibliographies.

 

And such allegations don't sit well in debate.

And in some cases, the feeling I got was that the references didn't tell the whole story. One such reference quoted from a general authority of the church, but cut him off before it could give an answer...

 

Gnarff, if your opponent won't discuss the facts with you, there is no debate.

I don't think you understand what I mean by primary source. Check here for an explanation.

That said, it's extremely rare that you would find a primary source that tells you the whole story about anything. You need to piece the events together by checking all the available primary sources.

 

In the incident I refer to, a general authority was acceptable as a diplomatic source for official Church answers on the topic involved. The person quoting him didn't link to the whole address...

On an interesting note, forgeries were brought up. Another area where we had locked horns involved allegations of forgery on either side.

 

We have another thread on Mormonism -- do we need to bring it here too?

 

Apparently.

 

I would like to remind people that this is a thread on ad hominem arguments. If it can be shown that a person's bias has caused him or her to falsify evidence then the bias argument is no longer ad hominem but relevant.

Ad hominem arguments are arguments that are not relevant to the debate or discussion and therefore are just plain down right dirty pool.

Another thought has crossed my mind. Could quoting a person out of context be considered an ad hominem argument?

 

Contextomy : Contextomy refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning.

Whether or not it counts as an ad hominem attack, it is still a logical fallacy.

 

Drew said:

"Contextomy refers to the... excerpting of words... in a way that... [tells] the source’s... meaning."

 

Yes, I think that counts as an ad hominem attack, as it is usually done to try and associate a person with parties or beliefs that he/she isn't associated with. For example, extreme anti-abortionists woudn't try to misquote and abortionist so that he says he is pro-life, no one would believe it for a second, but they may mis-quote him to make him seem like he has absolutely no respect for human life, thus falsly associating him with immoral behaviour that has no direct connection to the morality of abortion.

I hope that made sense to you all, I think it's the 5th longest sentence I've ever written. Maybe 6th.

 

Hi, may I hijack the topic juuuust a little? Thank you, you're all very kind, I'll bring it back .

What exactly is a "moonbat?" I've been called so a few times on one discussion board, usually with the "leftist" qualifier mentioned or implied.

 

From Wikipedia