[Vision2020] name calling: AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT

[Tbertruss at aol.com]

Joan et. al.

Yes, argument ad hominem can be amusing.  But you lost me totally in your 
assertion that this form of argument cannot be dismissed as "fallacious" or 
"invalid" when you stated emphatically that "it is neither."

You wrote:

As a type of polemic, the ad hominem is often dismissed as 
either fallacious or invalid; it is neither.  It's simply not logical.  
It can, however, be amusing.  

"Fallacious" and "invalid" are words that in their common definitions can be 
used to refer to the correctness of logical arguments.  Your claim that ad 
hominem arguments are neither "fallacious" or "invalid" does not fit common 
usage.

First, the definition of "fallacious," and not one from a technical study of 
logic, but from the hoi polloi web site dictionary.com:

fallacious adj 1: containing or based on a fallacy; "fallacious reasoning"; 
"an unsound argument" [syn: unsound] 2: intended to deceive; "deceitful 
advertising"; "fallacious testimony"; "smooth, shining, and deceitful as thin ice" - 
S.T.Coleridge; "a fraudulent scheme to escape paying taxes" [syn: deceitful, 
fraudulent] 3: based on an incorrect or misleading notion or information; 
"fallacious hope"

"Fallacious" in this definition first refers to fallacious reasoning, an 
unsound argument. Argument ad hominem can most definitely refer to a fallacious 
argument, an argument that contains a "fallacy."

Below is an argument using argument ad hominem that is "fallacious:"

Person X is a bad man who has killed dozens of helpless women and children in 
cold blooded premeditated murder for no other reason than his sadistic 
personal pleasure.
Any ethical principle person X espouses is therefore a false principle, 
because of the overwhelming evil that person X embodies (ad hominem type of 
thinking).
Person X states that premeditated cold blooded murder like he committed is 
wrong.
Therefore, the ethical principle that "cold blooded premeditated murder for 
no other reason than sadistic personal pleasure is wrong," is a false 
principle, because person X espoused it.

In the argument above, use of argument ad hominem leads to a fallacious 
conclusion, assuming we accept the principle on murder offered above as a valid 
ethical principle that exists in fact in an accepted ethical system(s).

Again from dictionary.com, below is a discussion of the history and current 
usage of "ad hominem" argument.  It is apparent this type of "argument" has a 
rather broad application in common usage, with debate ongoing as to the exact 
correct proper usage.  Note the discussion of the application of argument ad 
hominem based on gender and the suggestions for the use of argument "ad 
feminam:"

ad homi·nem adv. 
> Usage Note: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the 
> homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, 
> not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the 
> listener's emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence The Republicans' 
> evocation of pity for the small farmer struggling to maintain his property is 
> a purely ad hominem argument for reducing inheritance taxes. This usage 
> appears to be waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel finds this sentence 
> acceptable. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of 
> an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on 
> one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is 
> weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The 
> expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether 
> or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the 
> nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use 
> is acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel. ·Ad hominem has also recently 
> acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks, as in “Notwithstanding all 
> the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together” 
> (Washington Post). This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be 
> gaining ground in journalistic style. ·A modern coinage patterned on ad hominem is 
> ad feminam, as in “Its treatment of Nabokov and its ad feminam attack on his 
> wife Vera often border on character assassination” (Simon Karlinsky). Though 
> some would argue that this neologism is unnecessary because the Latin word 
> homo refers to humans generically, rather than to the male sex, in some 
> contexts ad feminam has a more specific meaning than ad hominem, being used to 
> describe attacks on women as women or because they are women, as in “Their 
> recourse... to ad feminam attacks evidences the chilly climate for women's 
> leadership on campus” (Donna M. Riley).
-------------------

Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051217/326a3487/attachment.htm