Ad Hominem

Dismissing arguments by
attacking the source (the
person) giving the argument.
Form of the Argument
 Attacks the source of the
argument (the arguer)
 Says: because there are flaws in
the source of the argument,
therefore there are flaws in the
argument itself.
Why this is a fallacy.
 Focus should
be on the
argument.
 Personal traits
(Character) of
the arguer
generally
irrelevant.
Types-Ad Hominem Fallacy
Personal-abusive
Bias-specialinterest
Inconsistency
Psychological
Inverse ad hominem
Ad Hominem Argument
 Ad hominem argument-can
be legitimate and cogent.
 Example- Richard Nixon-
misled people, lied and
vindictive. Lionel has a bad
temper, does not like
children, and can’t think-
should not be a teacher.
Ad Hominem-Argument
 Some ad hominem attack
are irrelevant- e.g. Lionel
is unfit to teach because
he is bow-legged and
wears ugly socks.
 Fallacy- Do not believe his
argument because he is…
 Abusive Against
 Personally attacks the
person giving the argument.
 x says p, x is bad,
therefore, don’t accept p.
 Dr. Jones says that this plan
for nuclear waste will not
work, but we all know he is a
womanizer and heavy drinker.
Why these are wrong.
 Regardless of who the
person is, whatever their
position, or how bad a
character they possess,
they may have a well-
reasoned argument and
their conclusion may be
justified.
Circumstantial- Bias
 x says p, x is biased because
of his circumstances, thus
you can’t accept p.
 “ Louis says that this oil
drilling will destroy the
ecosystem in this area, but
he is an environmentalist
and thus this can’t be
true.”
Why this is a fallacy
 Flaws in the source do not
mean flaws in the argument-
having a special interest does
not make the argument
unsound.
 Do look more carefully at the
argument
Advocacy-Testimony
Lawyer as advocate, but not
testimony.-interest and no
chance to challenge.
Cannot discredit advocate’s
argument by ad hominem-
this is a fallacy.
Testimony/Argument
Testimony within
argument-p. 187
Critical- argument
for profit- research,
and statements.
Testimony/Argument
 “Testimony is like an arrow shot
from a long bow; the force of it
depends on the strength of the
hand that draws it. Argument is
like an arrow from a crossbow,
which has equal force though shot
by a child.”
Ad Hominem Attack
 Ad hominem attack on
testimony proper.
 Judge all info about
past behavior, special
interest, character of
person testifying.
Inconsistency-Ad H
 Accuses arguer of
being inconsistent or
hypocritical.
 Dr. Smith argues for
global warming, but two
years ago he said this
was not the case.
Where is the fallacy?
 Says one is
“speaking
out of both
sides of
one’s
mouth,” but
one can
change one’s
mind with
reason.
 Hypocrites can argue
 Doctor (with cigarette in hand)
argues: “You should quit
smoking. Evidence shows that
long-term smoking damages the
lungs and can lead to cancer.
Second-hand smoke also damages
the lungs of others in your family,
especially the young children.”
Inconsistency Again
 If between argument
and actions-Fallacy.
 If within argument-
bad argument.
 If testimony-then
inconsistency relevant.
Psychological Ad H
 Focuses on mental state of the
arguer-implied sympathy.
 You should dismiss Bert’s
argument about banning whale
hunting; it is all about his own
guilt at being a rich boy.
 Inverse Ad Hominem
Praise for the source of the
argument is not relevant to
the quality of the argument.
Horace is one of the kindest
persons I know so his
argument about hunting
should be listened to.
Testimony Credibility
 Testimony takes it’s strength
entirely from its source.
 Legitimate to ask about
character, truthfulness,
reliability, and motive for
testimony (paid, incentives).
Questions to Pursue
 Does the person have a history of
lying, fraud and deceit?
 Is the person delusional or
paranoid?
 Self-interest; payment.
 Does witness have special interest
or bias in the case?
Psychology-Testimony
Psychological
instability is
relevant to the
credibility of
testimony.
Testimony & Praise
Good qualities are relevant
for testimony
Being honest, truthful,
principled, unbiased, and
psychologically sound is
relevant to testimony.
More Fallacies
Strawperson

SlipperySlope
False Dilemma

Golden Mean

Begging the Question

Straw Person (Man)
 This tactic attempts to refute a
position by oversimplifying or
exaggerating their claims.
 One weakens their argument or
misrepresents their argument and then
attacks this weakened version
Strawman Example
 Mobil’s argument against those
who favor “soft energy” (e.g. solar,
wind, wood burning, etc).
 They want to “get all our energy
from firewood.”
Another Strawman
 Buckley’s argument against “anti-
handgun” fundamentalists.
 They tell you even the presence of a
loaded handgun means Mr. Finegan is
going to get drunk and shoot the Mrs.
Important Questions
 Is this the strongest view of the
position?
 Is this an accurate picture?
 Principle of charity-Interpret
opposing arguments as generously
and fairly as possible.
Beard - Slippery Slope
 This fallacy assumes that you
cannot draw lines or
distinctions- e.g. “when does
one have a beard.”
 “If you give my husband an
inch, he takes a yard. First it
was a lawnmower, then a
blower, then a weed-wacker.
Soon there will be no room in
the garage.”
Slippery Slope
 Claims an innocent-looking step should
not be taken because it will lead quickly
to bad results.
 Eg. If we put flourides in our water,
then it will be in our tea, coffee,
lemonade, bodies, and then there will be
tranquillizers and other drugs.
Legitimate Slope
 Must provide clear and good reasons
for each step down the slope.
 Give good reasons for why and how
a particular action will lead to bad
results.
Distracting Technique
 Focus on “dire results” distracts us
from real issue.
 Burden of proof is on the person
claiming that terrible consequences
will follow-must offer good reasons
for these claims.
Letting the camel in.
 Assumes
that if you
let the
camel’s nose
into the tent,
then the
whole camel
will follow.
False Dilemma
 This poses a false
choice.- “Either we pay
the government or they
pay us, so why work”
 Either we ban all
weapons or we will
have all-out war.
Why this is a Fallacy.
 This “Black or White” Fallacy
assumes that there are
always only two alternatives,
but this usually is not true.
 “Life is neither black or
white, but chocolate
brown.” -Hegel
Convincing, but
Either the butler saw the
defendant kill Lord Rutabaga
or he is lying. But he is
known for his honesty, thus.
Other possibilities
Given the problems of eye
witness testimony, the butler
could be genuinely mistaken.
Ask- “Are there other
possibilities?”
Raising Fees Again
 The state has decreased its
funding to the university. This
leaves us with a terrible choice.
Either we must raise fees, or
we have to close the library.
The Golden Mean
 This assumes that the middle position, a
compromise is always correct. This may
well not be the case.
 To allow second degree murder (no
intent) for a poisoning is an odd
compromise.
Always available mean
 Can construct for any issue- weak
or strong
 Golden mean can support
contradictory conclusions.
 Is the mean a good argument?
Begging the question
This is an argument that
hides its conclusion as a
premise and thus does not
really prove anything new.
Synonymous Begging
 Disguises conclusion in premises by
giving a synonymous form of it.
 Socialism is not workable because an
economic system in which the means of
production are collectively owned cannot
work.
Circular Begging
 This is circular
reasoning with the
form:
 P is true because Q is
true and Q is true
because P is true.
Begging the Question
 “If
men are to survive,
they must be fit.
Indeed, only the fittest
survive. Look at those
who have survived.
They have because
they are fit.”
Self-Sealing Argument
 This is to win an argument by
constant redefinition.
 All women drivers are terrible-
provide counterexample and he
says “But she drives like a man.
Complex Question
An implied answer is
contained in the question.
When did you stop beating
your wife?
Loaded Question
 “Have you
always loved
to be last in
the league?”
RECAP IDEAS
Assess the argument , not the arguer.
Things are not usually between two
choices.
Lines can be drawn, one need not slide
down a slope.
Lack of proof is no proof.
More summary ideas
 The middle position is not
automatically correct or good.
 Repetition of the conclusion does
not make it so.
 Why ask, if you know.