On 21 Aug 2002 at 14:14, rhinoceros wrote:
>
> [rhinoceros 1]
> Someone is discussing what someone else is and tries to classify him.
> This is an argument in itself. This is not ad hominem, because it is
> not supposed to counter any specific argument made by the second
> person.
>
> [Joe Dees 2]
> In the case of the article writer, it is indeed an ad hominem, as it
> is intended to a priori impeach anything that the targets of the
> article might have to say, regardless of merit; that is the very
> definition of ad hominem.
>
> [rhinoceros 1]
> But the first person makes a specific argument. If we counter this
> specific argument by trying to classify the first person, then we have
> an ad hominem,
>
> [Joe Dees 2]
> In either case, it is an ad hominem, and I have just explained why.
>
>
> [rhinoceros 3]
> By your definition of ad hominem, every negative argument about a
> person or source would become an ad hominem argument, making the
> concept practically useless.
>
It is indeed logically invalid; authentic arguments concerning ideas
should debate the merits and deficiencies of those ideas alone, not the
perceived assets and liabilities of their authors, and can genuinely
validate them (or in-) only on the basis of those merits and
deficiencies.
>
> Let's take a hypothetical situation. Someone publishes an article
> providing good evidence that a source is in the payroll of an
> organization (CIA or Saddam's secret services). According to your
> definition, that article would be ad hominem. According to mine, it
> would not.
>
> The article would not invalidate any specific arguments made by that
> source; it would just make the source less credible. Only when one
> uses the credibility issue of the source to argue against a specific
> argument of the source do we have an ad hominem argument.
>
Most attacks (not all, as a person may be ignorant within one field while
being well-versed in another, and an ad hominem ignorance attack may
admit same) on a source's credibility attacks that source's credibility in
general, and not just in particular. This is why William F. Buckley said
that ad hominem was indeed a fallacy, but it was also a fallacy with very
sharp teeth; by invoking bias or conflict of interest or ignorance or
obtuseness on the part of the author, one to a certain degree succeeds
in impugning their products, even if illegitimately.
> ----
> This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2002 board on
> Church of Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;thread
> id=26206>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:20 MDT