Could we have an RFC to explain what is and what is not a valid ad-hominem argument?
Almost everyone who raises it gets it wrong.
Ad Hominem is a perfectly valid argument against claims of fact when made against the authority making the claim. "PT Barnum is a notorious liar' is a perfectly valid argument against a claim PT Barnum is making about having found a mermaid.
Ad hominem is not a valid argument against a conclusion drawn from agreed facts. So if I say 'that must be a bad idea because Dave Crocker supports it' then I am making an invalid adhominem argument.
But even here, ad hominem can be valid if in the case that it is excluding the last authority. For example, if we are discussing the situation in Ukraine and John McBain suggests an immediate US invasion then it is a perfectly valid argument to state that 'McBain is the only person making that proposal, McBain always suggests starting a war, the proposal is ridiculous and is not worth the time to consider'.
The question at issue here is not merely the conclusion but the implied statement of the facts.
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2/24/2014 6:38 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
I'll suggest that that question is primarily ad hominem and
even if it weren't, it's not a particularly helpful line of
response. It doesn't matter what the background is of the
person asking the question.
Dave, FWIW, I disagree, both about the "primarily ad hominem"
suggestion and about the comment about background.
If you or I had made the suggestion, would that affect its merit? We have extensive IETF meeting experience, but that's irrelevant.
If it's a good suggestion, it doesn't matter who made it.
If it's a bad suggestion, it doesn't matter who made it.
By publicly asking about the background of the person making the suggestion, the public exchange moves from the merits of the suggestion to the merits of the person making the suggestion.
Moving focus off of the substance and to the speaker is the essence of ad hominem. It either explicitly or implicitly is asserting that the nature of the speaker affects the merit of what is spoken, with the usual implication that the speaker and their suggestion should be discounted.So it isn't ad hominem unless it is a direct, frontal and coarse assertion of the false factor? If it is only implied, it doesn't count?
If Lloyd had said "you are a known <NegativeCategory>, therefore
your suggestion should be ignored" that would be primarily an ad
hominem attack.
You are confusing substance with person.
the question about
background seems to me to be relevant. Let me try an analogy
that, given some recent postings, shouldn't be too far afield.
Suppose someone had posted a note to the IETF list or some
meeting list saying "during the upcoming meeting, it is really
important that everyone have a proper traditional English
breakfast". I'd consider "what background, especially in
nutrition and related fields,
The question that was asked was not "what is the basis for the recommendation" but "what is your experience with our meetings". The former is substance and reasonable. The latter is personal and not.
And this was done in public as an immediate response and without any other context.
We make this confusion quite a lot in the IETF.
Website: http://hallambaker.com/