• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

"Attack ideas, not people" (in Argument): how valid?

^^^
Appealing to an authority is only a fallacy in formal logic. If you don't think that an authority's claim is stronger evidence than a lay person's then you are crazy.
 
Er...I haven't often seen you make personal attacks. :p
well, i don't think i ever did
but that's how some posters perceive me
they consider all arguments as attacks

i almost never start conversations on the subject either
usually i just reply to someone else's remark and it sometimes brings more posters or replies about the subject
 
I didn't realize this thread was quite old when I replied, only just saw Vader's bump but I think this is a fascinating topic as well. Since the posts I'm replying to are very old, I don't expect replies back from their originators but anyone can feel free to critique me :)

Ah. However, this isn't a clear case of question-begging, as the ad-hominem argument's assertions amount to claiming that an argument is mistaken because the person arguing such is "ignorant". While ignorance often leads those ignorant to construct of false arguments, there is no logically necessary connection between the two, implying a lack of the crypto-tautology entailed by question-begging.

But I agree that your examples are better. :)

ebola

I disagree, I believe you have indeed conflated a self-affirming statement with an ad hominem in example two, let's look at your wording:

"Christianity is a violent religion. Those trying to prove otherwise on this board demonstrate such in their ignorance."

Let's assign X to represent "those trying to prove otherwise on this board" and Y to the assertion that "Christianity if a violent religion"

In order to be an ad hominem, the the logical flow of the argument would have to be

"Y is right because X is ignorant."

However, your argument flows as such:

"X is ignorant because Y is right."

It is easy to intuitively confuse these two because they are very similar but these are conditional statements and so it is not valid to equate the two logically. Your argument is self-affirming because it simply states that "Y is right" without providing logical justification, and then further stating that X is ignorant conditional on not understanding that Y is right. But still, there is no justification provided for why Y is right other than the simple assertion of its rightness in the first place.

It's clear to me that ad hominem considerations are sometimes appropriate when evaluating the evidence for a particular assertion.

For example, say a clever grad student posts to her blog a weak statistical argument for some yet to be proven mathematical hypothesis. We know that she is clever, so we read and understand the argument, concluding that it is indeed evidence in support of the hypothesis.

Now suppose Terry Tao, arguably the greatest living mathematical genius, posts the exact same argument to his blog. We might imagine that Tao has, in his head, multiple converging lines of evidence in support of the hypothesis, of which this is just one. We might also suspect that it is part of some deeper framework, yet to be elucidated.

We should consider the second situation far stronger evidence in support of the hypothesis, solely based on who originated the argument.

And yet the argument's validity does not depend on the assumption of such converging lines of evidence based on repute, but on such evidence itself.

We may have reason when, evaluating both arguments, to choose Tao's as the most likely to contain logically valid content, but only in evaluating that content can we gauge the strength of her arguments.

You're providing a sort of empirical claim when what's being discussed is logic - the two are of course, intertwined but not equivalent. We should not consider the second situation far stronger evidence in support of the hypothesis - we should consider it strong evidence to evaluate tao's arguments over the grad students first because we have empirical reason to believe that she is more likely to produce stronger arguments. The arguments themselves, however, remain unexplained.
 
Last edited:
Appealing to an authority is only a fallacy in formal logic.
How can you appeal to authority in formal logic?
In order to be an ad hominem, the the logical flow of the argument would have to be

"Y is right because X is ignorant."

However, your argument flows as such:

"X is ignorant because Y is right."
Forgive me, but isn't the flow "The ignorance of the Christians on this board confirms the violence of Christianity", i.e. X is ignorant therefore Y is true?
 
Last edited:
Ah, I re-read it and I think you're right, I'm not exactly sure how I misinterpreted that - I think it was just the construction of the sentence - "in their ignorance" at the end that through me off. Sorry for the dopishness :)
 
i usually use my phone to post

but i got on the laptop for this. ive learned since i started on bl that it is hard not to attack people while you are attacking an idea. does that mean you shouldnt attack the idea? i guess it would be a question of whether its worth it or not.
 
Why is it hard? I don't find it especially difficult.

I find that some people tend to anthropomorphise ideas and thus use "stealth" ad hominems. An example: "That's an idiotic idea". All that really means is "That idea is one that only an idiot could have". It's not really attacking the idea at all. Similarly, when people say that an idea is racist, or sexist, I think that they're really just attacking the thinker rather than the thought.
 
I guress its hard for me when someone is offended by an opinion I present. I wouldn't say that they are "anthropomorphise" Ing.. if they sympathize or understand something I don't. But they can easily get offended..
 
It's a grey area, I think:

yerg/vader said:
I find that some people tend to anthropomorphise ideas and thus use "stealth" ad hominems. An example: "That's an idiotic idea". All that really means is "That idea is one that only an idiot could have". It's not really attacking the idea at all.

I agree that this is often the sentiment expressed, but sometimes the anthropomorphization is more direct, wandering out of ad hom land. Taking your example, sometimes people deem ideas "idiotic" to express that they are simply implausible. I believe that connotations also vary a lot here...

Similarly, when people say that an idea is racist, or sexist, I think that they're really just attacking the thinker rather than the thought.

I think that if the accusation ends with an explanation as to why it is sexist/racist/etc., the 'epithet' delivered will often fail to express an ad-hom. I believe this because such explanations often critique the substantive argument quoted.

ebola
 
i think that if someone expresses that an opinion that they feel something is racist/sexist or generally just hurtful, people that disagree that it is true can "anthropomorphise" the idea for the people they are defending..
if i say for ex:
"religion is dangerous, it can hurt people"
and someone says either "i am religious", "i find that offensive", or "im an asshole" then they might be anthropomorphise ing if that is even the right word. i would say no.. i think "taking it personally" would do in most cases im thinking about..
 
I think that if the accusation ends with an explanation as to why it is sexist/racist/etc., the 'epithet' delivered will often fail to express an ad-hom. I believe this because such explanations often critique the substantive argument quoted.
What, then, does the "epithet" add? If you have a good argument against the claim in question, then you need not label it in such a way. I also think that "idiotic" has more caught up in it than "implausible". There's something...spiteful? venomous? idk, but there's something about it that makes it feel much more like a personal slight (obviously intention and interpretation can be different).

religion is dangerous, it can hurt people"
and someone says either "i am religious", "i find that offensive", or "im an asshole" then they might be anthropomorphise ing if that is even the right word. i would say no.. i think "taking it personally" would do in most cases im thinking about..
No, they're not anthropomorphising. They're taking offence at your idea; that doesn't mean you've attacked them, and I would say that, in the given example, you haven't (though Jam might disagree- see first post).
 
This is a good thread and the ideas are worth thinking about. Of all the posts that I was able to get through (some were too long to read), I agree with Vegan's comments the most. (Maybe because as a meat-eater who has had that interaction with a vegan that he mentioned years ago when I was less mature, I could relate to his example.)

I will add that when somebody criticizes something that is close to you (religion is the big example here), you tend to take it personally, even though the criticism wasn't meant to be a personal attack. That's when everyone needs to remember that what is being discussed is a religion or something about it. Not its followers. That's easier said than done, and it really takes some social skills and maturity to do.
 
Last edited:
There is a thread that talks about circumcision. How could you attack that idea, without offending the people that would insist that its a part of them. Does the Jewish religion matter? Does the holocaust matter? I would say no but it definitely puts a little spin on logic. I would never want to offend someone. But I would never want to condone something wrong(if it is) not trying to focus on the topic, just the reasoning that is worth discussing, or does something so unique require a specific kind of reasoning.
 
Sticks & stones, stones & sticks ?


Otherwise, when one criticizes masculinity without prior mutual-agreement, one criticizes all men, without even the need to mention any of them by name

I'd have thought anyone who said that would be having a joke, unless they were actually insecure ( I myself wear dresses in order to prove I am not insecure - true story - is an emoticon needed?)

The christian example is a better one. I think it more likely that the listener (on a personal level) would form an opinion that the speaker was ignorant rather than take offence at the statement, yet on a cultural level I think the point is valid.
All in all what one says and how one says it says more about one than it does another.
 
If a woman says around me "all men are pigs" I wouldn't necessarily get offended, but I may choose to defend myself, or men in general with an explanation, depending on the situation..
 
when u are attacking others... we are attacking ourselves we see i in others or u in me
 
Conversation depends on the perception of 2things; the one who speaks n the one who hears.
Sometime the best intentions are meant with the worst reactions.
Cant help it as the power is only half yours.
 
Yerg/Vader said:
What, then, does the "epithet" add? If you have a good argument against the claim in question, then you need not label it in such a way. I also think that "idiotic" has more caught up in it than "implausible". There's something...spiteful? venomous? idk, but there's something about it that makes it feel much more like a personal slight (obviously intention and interpretation can be different).

What I actually meant is that the 'epithet' (eg, "That's racist!") doesn't add anything, but can summarize something more valid and substantive. And I didn't mean to imply that any of these examples carry NONE of the implications of an ad-hom, but rather that they occupy a grey area to which we weren't giving credence earlier.

ebola
 
Top