----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 8:14 PM
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 02:37:13PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> > Could we have an RFC to explain what is and what is not a valid
ad-hominem
> > argument?
>
> There are no valid _ad hominem_ arguments. _Ad hominem_ is a short
> name of a fallacious form or reasoning where one attacks the person
> making the argument _instead of_ attacking the argument as such.
> (More fully, of course, it's known as _argumentum ad hominem_.)
Yes, clearly, but what then is the plural, when you have more than one
ad hominem, against the same or different people? argumenta ad hominem,
which is then abbreviated to ad hominem?
Tom Petch
>
> > 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.
>
> I think this is only sort of true. When Barnum is making his
> argument, he's offering testimony ("I found a mermaid"). In this
> case, pointing out that Barnum is a notorious liar is an attack on the
> testimony. It's therefore not an _ad hominem_ because you're not
> attacking the person speaking, but arguing about the premises of
> Barnum's original argument from testimony. Even there, it'd be a
> pretty weak argument, until you added, "Also, there are no previous
> known cases of mermaids, and PT Barnum has refused to allow anyone
> else to examine the alleged mermaid." Otherwise, you could as easily
> use the premise "Barnum is a notorious liar" when Barnum says, "A
> contradiction cannot be true."
>
> The primary consideration is always relevance to the argument at hand.
> That's why _ad hominem_ is usually classified as a fallacy of
> relevance. It's also why I prefer to avoid the term _ad hominem_ in
> favour of pointing out why something is irrelevant to the argument at
> hand.
>
> > The question at issue here is not merely the conclusion but the
implied
> > statement of the facts.
>
> I disagree. The question is whether the argument against a given
> position is relevant to the truth or falisty of that position (or its
> supporting premises). In the case of an _ad hominem_, the irrelevance
> lies with attending to the speaker instead of that which is spoken.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Andrew
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>