The English translation for the Latin phrase, "Argumentum ad Hominem," is an "Argument against the Man or Woman," or more accurately, "Argument against the Person."
There are two persons involved here. The first person advances a statement or an argument and the second person responds not by substantiating the issue or claim in the statement or the argument but by attacking the person or the character of the proponent.
It can be illustrated in this form:
A makes a claim.
B. makes an attack on person A.
Therefore, A's claim is false.
This kind of fallacy is associated with "character demolition" which is common in political debates and in court proceedings. In political debates, participants find it easier and advantageous to discuss personalities and engage in mudslinging, rather than discuss the issues in the debate. In court proceedings, a smart trial lawyer may focus more on destroying the credibility of the witness rather than give more weight on the volume of evidences presented by the witness.
Example:
There are two persons involved here. The first person advances a statement or an argument and the second person responds not by substantiating the issue or claim in the statement or the argument but by attacking the person or the character of the proponent.
It can be illustrated in this form:
A makes a claim.
B. makes an attack on person A.
Therefore, A's claim is false.
This kind of fallacy is associated with "character demolition" which is common in political debates and in court proceedings. In political debates, participants find it easier and advantageous to discuss personalities and engage in mudslinging, rather than discuss the issues in the debate. In court proceedings, a smart trial lawyer may focus more on destroying the credibility of the witness rather than give more weight on the volume of evidences presented by the witness.
Example:
- Senator A claims that the legal age for marriage should be decreased from 18 to 15.
- But we all now that Senator A is not a good performing senator, a practicing homosexual, and a corrupt government official.
- Therefore, the legal age for marriage should be 18 instead of lowering it to 15.
In premise 1, the first person is the senator making the claim. In premise 2, the second person drops, ignores, or disproves the truth of the claim, and attacks the person or character of the specific senator advancing the statement or argument. The truth of the conclusion turns out a complete opposite to the truth of the claim. This constitutes the fallacy. There is no material and logical correlation between the premises and the conclusion; something which is required for valid arguments.
No comments:
Post a Comment