Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The Ad Hominem Fallacy

  1. May 15, 2012 #1
    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.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 15, 2012 #2
    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 !"
     
  4. May 15, 2012 #3
    Interesting that you start this thread Zooby, It's one of the roots of my enemy thread. Exactly that.
     
  5. May 15, 2012 #4
    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.
     
  6. May 15, 2012 #5

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    And another: "Ignore zooby's analysis of ad homs. Just one look at his avatar and you know he has to be wrong." :tongue2:
     
  7. May 15, 2012 #6
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3913571#post3913571
     
  8. May 15, 2012 #7
    How about this: "You're just jealous because I know how to spell out my full name." Ad Hominem?
     
  9. May 15, 2012 #8

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
  10. May 15, 2012 #9
    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.
     
  11. May 15, 2012 #10

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
  12. May 15, 2012 #11
    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.
     
  13. May 15, 2012 #12

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I disagree with this zoob - often the other half is just left insaid, for the reader to fill in.
     
  14. May 15, 2012 #13
    I guess, it doesn't need to be said that this thread is all about apophasis.
     
  15. May 15, 2012 #14
    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.
     
  16. May 15, 2012 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Hairsplitting? :tongue:
     
  17. May 15, 2012 #16

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  18. May 15, 2012 #17

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    hrm, interestingly, according to wiki, an ad hominem is considered an informal fallacy and nonsequitor is considered a formal fallacy.
     
  19. May 15, 2012 #18

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  20. May 15, 2012 #19
    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.
     
  21. May 15, 2012 #20

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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!
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: The Ad Hominem Fallacy
  1. Adding (Replies: 23)

  2. Logical Fallacies (Replies: 2)

  3. A fallacy folly (Replies: 38)

  4. Logical Fallacy Poster (Replies: 13)

Loading...