Ad Hominem Fallacy: Definition & Examples

[zoobyshoe]

People ought to read what this actually consists of, because I've noticed people mistaking mere insults for Ad Hominems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Calling someone an insulting or abusive name is not an Ad Hominem. Generally, an Ad Hominem is an attempt to discredit someone based on something about them that is actually unrelated to the issue at hand. These are Ad Hominems:

"Joe's political views are meaningless: he's an alcoholic."

"Don't let Sam correct your grammar, he believes in Ancient Aliens."

"It figures Thelma got sexually assaulted: she's been divorced twice and never goes to church."



These following are not Ad Hominems, just insults:

"Frank is a moron, and ugly on top of it."

"She is nuts."

"Edna is an ignorant hack."

"You'd have to be crazy not to like Ed Smith."

...verbal abuse in the absence of an argument is neither ad hominem nor a fallacy.

Therefore:

"You don't vote Republican? You're an idiot!"

Is not an Ad Hominem, just an insult. It might take place during the course of an argument, but it is not, itself, an argument of any sort.

 

[256bits]

So when not completely sure of an insult, or a witty retort back, someone will say " I think I just got insulted! ".
With an Ad Hominem can one say " I think I just got Ad Hominemized !"

 

[Andre]

Interesting that you start this thread Zooby, It's one of the roots of my enemy thread. Exactly that.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Interesting that you start this thread Zooby, It's one of the roots of my enemy thread. Exactly that.

I don't exactly follow. I was actually prompted by seeing someone in another forum misinterpret an insult (a pretty mild one, if it was one at all) as an Ad Hominem.

 

[D H]

These are Ad Hominems: ...

And another: "Ignore zooby's analysis of ad homs. Just one look at his avatar and you know he has to be wrong."

 

[Andre]

Interesting that you start this thread Zooby, It's one of the roots of my enemy thread. Exactly that.

I don't exactly follow. I was actually prompted by seeing someone in another forum misinterpret an insult (a pretty mild one, if it was one at all) as an Ad Hominem.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3913571#post3913571

 

[zoobyshoe]

And another: "Ignore zooby's analysis of ad homs. Just one look at his avatar and you know he has to be wrong."

How about this: "You're just jealous because I know how to spell out my full name." Ad Hominem?

 

[D H]

How about this: "You're just jealous because I know how to spell out my full name." Ad Hominem?

That is just an insult; your argument in the opening post is correct. Had you used my incomplete spelling as a reason for dismissing my claim, then that would have been an ad hominem attack.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I try to avoid using Ad Hominem attacks. I might point out that Zoobyshoe is a stupid, ugly, fat, ignorant slob. But I would never give that as the reason that he is always wrong.

 

[D H]

I might point out that Zoobyshoe is a stupid, ugly, fat, ignorant slob. But I would never give that as the reason that he is always wrong.

Whether zoobyshoe is ugly or fat is irrelevant to the correctness / incorrectness of his posts. That is what would make the use of these terms an ad hominem attack.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Whether zoobyshoe is ugly or fat is irrelevant to the correctness / incorrectness of his posts. That is what would make the use of these terms an ad hominem attack.

Very good. Likewise, I would never allude to the fact you both are impossibly hideous, near-reptilian monstrosities, to explain why your utterances are invariably nonsensical and incoherent. It would be an Ad Hominem to do so, because the former has nothing to do with the latter.

 

[russ_watters]

I disagree with this zoob - often the other half is just left insaid, for the reader to fill in.

 

[Andre]

I guess, it doesn't need to be said that this thread is all about apophasis.

 

[Dickfore]

So, in your example, if you use your insult to refute their statement, it is a logical fallacy (ad hom.), but if you deduce an insult from their statement (eg. you do not support Republicans, ergo you're an idiot.), then it is not a fallacious argument?!

Call it what you want, but I still think the latter is fallacious argument. Maybe a non sequitur, but still fallacy.

 

[russ_watters]

So, in your example, if you use your insult to refute their statement, it is a logical fallacy (ad hom.), but if you deduce an insult from their statement (eg. you do not support Republicans, ergo you're an idiot.), then it is not a fallacious argument?!

Call it what you want, but I still think the latter is fallacious argument. Maybe a non sequitur, but still fallacy.

Hairsplitting?

 

[Pythagorean]

ad hominem is just a nonsequitor. We make a new category for it just because it's a special case of nonsequitor that hurts our feelings. Also, probably because it's a strong appeal to social emotion, so it can be more effective so we single it out?What's the difference between an "informal fallacy" and a "nonsequitor"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy

 

[Pythagorean]

hrm, interestingly, according to wiki, an ad hominem is considered an informal fallacy and nonsequitor is considered a formal fallacy.

 

[mheslep]

I do see one common use of the ad homimem retort that is abused. A poster submits a link to an obscure or hopelessly biased reference that has no hint of rigorous or scholarly analysis of the subject at hand. If in response one declines to read or respond to the reference then the ad hominem retort is often tossed out, incorrectly since there is no argument at hand from the reference.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I disagree with this zoob - often the other half is just left insaid, for the reader to fill in.

If you can tell that is what is happening, you know which it is. My point is simply that an insult is not an Ad Hominem fallacy, that they're two separate things.

 

[Pythagorean]

P1: define insult functionally
P2: demonstrate that target participates in abnormality of function defined in P1
C: therefore, person fits definition of insult

viola! Look, we can make valid insults!

 

[zoobyshoe]

ad hominem is just a nonsequitor.

It's not just a non-sequitor. It draws a false connection between one thing and another, implying that one thing causes the other. "Don't listen to Joe's political opinions, he's an alcoholic." His being an alcoholic does not necessarily have any bearing on his political views, but the Ad Hominem asserts that it does.

 

[Dickfore]

It's not just a non-sequitor. It draws a false connection between one thing and another, implying that one thing causes the other. "Don't listen to Joe's political opinions, he's an alcoholic." His being an alcoholic does not necessarily have any bearing on his political views, but the Ad Hominem asserts that it does.

And that's exactly what a non-sequitur is.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I suppose that every logical fallacy has a non sequitur in it somewhere. If so, then it doesn't shed any light on the subject to note that Ad Hominem fallicies are also non sequiturs.

 

[zoobyshoe]

So, in your example, if you use your insult to refute their statement, it is a logical fallacy (ad hom.), but if you deduce an insult from their statement (eg. you do not support Republicans, ergo you're an idiot.), then it is not a fallacious argument?!

Call it what you want, but I still think the latter is fallacious argument. Maybe a non sequitur, but still fallacy.

The latter is a "bald assertion", an assertion made with no attempt to back it up or argue for its correctness. Therefore, it is not a fallacious argument because no attempt to make an argument is present. It is just an insult. The abusive label "idiot" may not actually apply to the person in any way, but that doesn't make it a logical fallacy. The formal logical fallacies have specific definitions, and this is about maintaining some rigor in understanding, and sticking to, those definitions, so that our logic is sound.

Using an insult to try to discredit someone's views would also not be an Ad Hominem: "You don't vote Republican because you're an idiot!" is still just an insult, an abusive remark.

The Ad Hominem that might arise here would be something like: "I'm not surprised you don't vote Republican. Your grades in school were consistently below average, and IIRC your I.Q. score was about 75." Here there's an attempt to argue that the person's party preferences are of no merit by falsely implying a correlation between his intelligence and his voting preference. It's an Ad Hominem fallacy.

If we say to someone who can be said to be of low intelligence by objective standards (low I.Q. score), "You don't vote Republican because you're an idiot!", then what we have is probably BOTH an Ad Hominem and an insult, the latter being because their level of intelligence is referred to abusively.

 

[mheslep]

It's not just a non-sequitor. It draws a false connection between one thing and another, implying that one thing causes the other. "Don't listen to Joe's political opinions, he's an alcoholic." His being an alcoholic does not necessarily have any bearing on his political views, but the Ad Hominem asserts that it does.

If I may that's a bit off the mark. Listening to Joe's opinion and then asserting he's wrong because he is an alchoholic is indeed textbook ad hominem. However, this is not: I decline to take time to listen to Joe's opinion because I know he's intoxicated, though he *may* indeed be right, but it is more likely that he's incoherent and there is only so much time in the day.

 

[zoobyshoe]

And that's exactly what a non-sequitur is.

JUST a non-sequitor:" I'm very tired today. That girl is wearing a green dress." No Ad Hominem here.

An Ad Hominem is more than just a non-sequitor.

 

[Andre]

Wow, do green dresses still exist?

 

[mheslep]

Aye

 

[zoobyshoe]

If I may that's a bit off the mark. Listening to Joe's opinion and then asserting he's wrong because he is an alchoholic is indeed textbook ad hominem. However, this is not: I decline to take time to listen to Joe's opinion because I know he's intoxicated, though he *may* indeed be right, but it is more likely that he's incoherent and there is only so much time in the day.

I'm not sure i see your point. Can you clarify it?

 

[mheslep]

I'm not sure i see your point. Can you clarify it?

Ad hominem refers to argument by attack on the presenter of the argument. Refusal to listen is not ad hominem, as there is no argument. This forum runs on similar lines: not all and every opinion from the web can be posted here. Those limitations are not ad hominem attacks on, say, crackpot references which are banned.

 

[Pythagorean]

JUST a non-sequitor:" I'm very tired today. That girl is wearing a green dress." No Ad Hominem here.

An Ad Hominem is more than just a non-sequitor.

So what? We don't have a Shoe Nonsequitor and a Whirlpools Nonsequitor. Why do we need a special class of nonsequitor for when human feelings are involved?

 

[D H]

ad hominem is just a nonsequitor.

No, it's not. Here's a non sequitur: The ground becomes wet when it rains. The ground is wet. Therefore it's raining. This line of reasoning, "if P then Q, Q, therefore P", affirms the consequent and is logically invalid. Non sequiturs are formal fallacies.

Ad hominem attacks are not necessarily invalid from the perspective of the rules of logic. "Joe's political views are meaningless: he's an alcoholic" follows the rules of logic. The problem is that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Ad homs are a kind of ignoratio elenchi argument (irrelevant conclusion), which in turn are a kind of informal fallacy.

 

[KiwiKid]

Ad hominem attacks are not necessarily invalid from the perspective of the rules of logic. "Joe's political views are meaningless: he's an alcoholic" follows the rules of logic. The problem is that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Ad homs are a kind of ignoratio elenchi argument (irrelevant conclusion), which in turn are a kind of informal fallacy.

Exactly. The hidden premise here was 'alcoholics don't have meaningful political views'. We can disagree with the premise and see that it's an ad hominem, but that doesn't make it a non sequitur: the conclusion *does* follow from the premise.

 

[zoobyshoe]

So what? We don't have a Shoe Nonsequitor and a Whirlpools Nonsequitor. Why do we need a special class of nonsequitor for when human feelings are involved?

The problem is that the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

@both:

Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All formal fallacies are special cases of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies.

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

 

[Pythagorean]

Hem, I thought that ad homonem was also conclusions that didn't follow from the premises. I didnt think it was still an ad hominem if it was logically valid. So any time we comment on statistics of poor performance (or some such) are we committing ad hominem? Even when our premises are true and the conclusion follows?

 

[zoobyshoe]

So what? We don't have a Shoe Nonsequitor and a Whirlpools Nonsequitor. Why do we need a special class of nonsequitor for when human feelings are involved?

It's not a matter of needing anything. It's a matter of simply observing there are different classes of a phenomenon and identifying them:

All formal fallacies are special cases of non sequitur...

... Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies.

Which means Jimmy Snyder was right:

I suppose that every logical fallacy has a non sequitur in it somewhere. If so, then it doesn't shed any light on the subject to note that Ad Hominem fallicies are also non sequiturs.

(Unless, of course, he jumped over and edited the Wiki when no one was looking. Hehe.)

 

[leroyjenkens]

You make a good point. I think people misinterpret ad hominem in two ways; they either think that because the person insulted them, that must mean their argument is weak, thus needing insults to "strengthen" what they're saying, or they just don't know what a fallacy is and think that just the mere act of insulting someone somehow detracts from their own argument.

 

[KiwiKid]

Hem, I thought that ad homonem was also conclusions that didn't follow from the premises. I didnt think it was still an ad hominem if it was logically valid. So any time we comment on statistics of poor performance (or some such) are we committing ad hominem? Even when our premises are true and the conclusion follows?

Well, that depends. There really are two premises here. If I tell someone "X isn't able to help someone with his physics homework because you were always terrible at physics," the two premises are "X is terrible at physics", and (the unspoken premise) "being terrible at physics makes you unable to help someone out with their physics homework." This is logically correct, and presuming that both premises are right, this can't be considered an ad hominem.

Consider now me telling someone "X isn't able to help someone with his physics homework because he is an alcoholic," where the two premises are "X is an alcoholic" and "being an alcoholic makes you unable to help someone out with their physics homework." This is still logically correct in that the conclusion follows from the premises, but it is an ad hominem in that the second premise is obviously construed to be a personal attack. Thus, an ad hominem is a conclusion where a personal attack is used as the (often hidden in open sight) premise.

 

[Kholdstare]

I am not much into debating about this. But have you guys seen this link?

http://mason.gmu.edu/~cmcgloth/portfolio/fallacies/fallacies.html

 

[zoobyshoe]

I am not much into debating about this. But have you guys seen this link?

http://mason.gmu.edu/~cmcgloth/portfolio/fallacies/fallacies.html

Thanks! That site has a definition of Ad Hominem which I think is a lot clearer than the Wiki definition:

The Latin translates "to the man" and refers to the strategy of attacking the person rather than attacking the idea he presents. Rather than debate the original argument on its merits, the opponent makes an attack upon some irrelevant fact about the person presenting the theory or claim. This attack might be upon the character of the person, a group to which the person is connected, a circumstance related to the person, the person's sincerity, or prior actions of the person. The intent is to avoid addressing the logic or veracity of the original argument, and instead convince the audience that because the presenter is somehow “flawed”, then his ideas are also flawed. There are a number of variations of the ad hominem attack including attack by innuendo and tu quoque.

 

[Pythagorean]

"Rather than debate the original argument on its merits, the opponent makes an attack upon some irrelevant fact about the person presenting the theory or claim."

That's pretty much all I thought an ad hominem was (which looks a lot like a non sequitor to me).

But it seems the article also presents it more generally, as a strategy, not the actual fallacy itself, (thus an informal fallacy). So now we have a term that tries to guess the opponents motive (or strategy). So the declaration of an ad hominem might itself be considered an ad hominem (since you're guessing motives). If you can just demonstrate it's a non-sequitor, isn't that aiming a little more objectively? i.e., at the argument, not the arguer.

 

[zoobyshoe]

"Rather than debate the original argument on its merits, the opponent makes an attack upon some irrelevant fact about the person presenting the theory or claim."

That's pretty much all I thought an ad hominem was (which looks a lot like a non sequitor to me).

But it seems the article also presents it more generally, as a strategy, not the actual fallacy itself, (thus an informal fallacy). So now we have a term that tries to guess the opponents motive (or strategy). So the declaration of an ad hominem might itself be considered an ad hominem (since you're guessing motives). If you can just demonstrate it's a non-sequitor, isn't that aiming a little more objectively? i.e., at the argument, not the arguer.

If you read the introduction at that new link you will see that, yes, the author of that site tends to view logical fallacies as deliberate and premeditated more often than not. I disagree with that. In my experience they are usually the result of undisciplined emotional reasoning and the person committing them has no real idea they are fallacious or why.

 

[Pythagorean]

Via DH and KiwiKid, we have the exception that one of the premises can basically be "but it DOES follow (that person's character/performance influences outcome of truth statement)" and then we could say that premise was false, then it's no longer a nonsequitor, just a false premise.

And if the new premise actually turns out to be true (and thus by definition, it does follow) then it's no longer a fallacy.

Thus, again, informal fallacy.

 

[Pythagorean]

If you read the introduction at that new link you will see that, yes, the author of that site tends to view logical fallacies as deliberate and premeditated more often than not. I disagree with that. In my experience they are usually the result of undisciplined emotional reasoning and the person committing them has no real idea they are fallacious or why.

I get the feeling informal fallacies aren't really well defined, which is why they might be considered informal.

 

[Curious3141]

"Ad hominem" is playing the man, not the ball.

A "strawman argument" is putting words into someone's mouth, then challenging those words.

Hardly formal definitions, but easy enough to remember.

 

[zoobyshoe]

"Ad hominem" is playing the man, not the ball.

Right, but I think people could fit a mere insult or abusive comment into this informal rule of thumb.

 

[ThomasT]

People ought to read what this actually consists of, because I've noticed people mistaking mere insults for Ad Hominems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Calling someone an insulting or abusive name is not an Ad Hominem. Generally, an Ad Hominem is an attempt to discredit someone based on something about them that is actually unrelated to the issue at hand. These are Ad Hominems:

"Joe's political views are meaningless: he's an alcoholic."

"Don't let Sam correct your grammar, he believes in Ancient Aliens."

"It figures Thelma got sexually assaulted: she's been divorced twice and never goes to church."



These following are not Ad Hominems, just insults:

"Frank is a moron, and ugly on top of it."

"She is nuts."

"Edna is an ignorant hack."

"You'd have to be crazy not to like Ed Smith."



Therefore:

"You don't vote Republican? You're an idiot!"

Is not an Ad Hominem, just an insult. It might take place during the course of an argument, but it is not, itself, an argument of any sort.

I don't see many outright personal insults in PF posts. It's against the PF rules, and I think that most instances of this sort of thing are quickly recognized and punished according to PF guidelines.

So, what's the problem? If you just want to point out that ad hominem arguments are, in general, different from outright personal insults, then, OK, I agree.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't see many outright personal insults in PF posts. It's against the PF rules, and I think that most instances of this sort of thing are quickly recognized and punished according to PF guidelines.

So, what's the problem? If you just want to point out that ad hominem arguments are, in general, different from outright personal insults, then, OK, I agree.

Three times in the past year or so I have seen people reply to a criticism by saying something like: "Oh I see you are stooping to an Ad Hominem attack on me. That shows what you're like!" When you look at what was actually said, the best you could squeeze out of it was a low grade insult, not an Ad Hominem. This made me aware there are people around who don't understand what an Ad Hominem is. If they understood they are merely being insulted, then, if they wanted, they could report it, but usually it's so low grade that it would be making a mountain out of a mole hill to exercise that option.

 

[ThomasT]

Three times in the past year or so I have seen people reply to a criticism by saying something like: "Oh I see you are stooping to an Ad Hominem attack on me. That shows what you're like!" When you look at what was actually said, the best you could squeeze out of it was a low grade insult, not an Ad Hominem. This made me aware there are people around who don't understand what an Ad Hominem is. If they understood they are merely being insulted, then, if they wanted, they could report it, but usually it's so low grade that it would be making a mountain out of a mole hill to exercise that option.

Ok, I think I understand your point. I should probably qualify this by adding that I've been temporarily banned for insulting one or more PF contributors. And yes, I agree with what you're saying, ie., these were not, strictly speaking, ad hominem arguments, but rather just insults.

 

[phoenix:\\]

"Frank is a moron, and ugly on top of it."

So if Frank's argument was about beauty, etc..., the instance of calling him a "moron" and "ugly" is, in fact, an attempt to discredit his argument based on the perceptions of the person arguing against his argument. He is ugly and a moron, indicating he doesn't know beauty and isn't beautiful. It's not one of the most sophisticated arguments but the rhetoric of it is an attempt to discredit Frank. This type of argument is, in fact, an ad hominem, specifically, ad hominem abusive.

In that same light there are other forms of ad hominem, the one you are stating is just an argument against the person, where as the other forms are "ad hominems abusive"-based arguments in that they bring up irrelevant insults towards the one they are arguing against and ad hominem circumstantial.