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

[Jamshyd]

I've always turned this notion in my mind. It just doesn't stick for me as a hard-and-fast rule. It seems to be pretty arbitrary. In fact, I started this thread precisely to discuss the arbitrariness of this rule: today, a good friend of mine on BL reminded me to attack the post, not the poster. Apparently we've been discussing the issue for years, yet I don't know what we concluded. So let's open the discussion for philosophical questioning.

So back to the above example of applying this rule: it definitely makes a lot of sense for forum etiquette. Criticize what a person wrote, rather than who a person is. The way I see it, The rule is perfectly applicable here, without question.

----

However, let's take the idea (or concept, rather) of "Masculinity" for a second example.

If I were to tackle the idea, I'd say something like: "The hallmark of masculinity is a sense of constant insecurity." I tackled the idea; I did not attack a single men.

And yet, I find it hard to believe that most (if not all) men, and even many women, would find this offensive to varying degrees. It appears that the "idea" of masculinity can only be attacked when all parties in discussion have, through initial mutual agreement, completely dissociated themselves from the concept of Masculinity, knowingly. That is the only way I could see it working.

Otherwise, when one criticizes masculinity without prior mutual-agreement, one criticizes all men, without even the need to mention any of them by name. In this case (ie. in public discussion), attacking either idea or person seems to have very similar results, leading one to wonder what the point is of applying the rule in question.

----

Let's do a third example: If I were to say (just for example), that "Christianity is inherently violent and encourages bloodshed." Note that I attacked the idea - I said "christianity", not "christians". As saying this implies that, by virtue of simply being a Christian, one is prone to violence and bloodshed. Does this make it any less of a fallacy? What's worse, such sayings help legitimize what violence a few christians may indeed have - both in their eyes and the eyes of the outsiders, both of whom find this allegation believable and thus propagate it either explicitly or implicitly.

I would say that in such a case, attacking the idea is even more harmful than attacking a person!

Now that I think of it, this actually applies to the masculinity example as well.

---

With all that said, it is my opinion that this rule cannot be applied to all vehicles of argument.

While it is definitely respectful to attack what a person wrote than what a person is; it definitely isn't the same case for attacking what a person identifies with (essentially part of what the person is) and claiming to have made a polite distinction. It simply doesn't work, because the dichotomy is fallacious - the identity-idea is an integral part of the person's being, and attacking one necessarily means attacking the other.

Is this rule - which is quite popular I find even outside of BL and fora in general - more than less a way for people to weasel out of political-correctness norms while trying to attack a group?

Or is there some universal validity here that I am just not getting? I'd be honestly open to changing my opinion if I find enough convincing replies...

 

[DJ 303]

In my opinion, this notion you reference is a guideline or rule that often occurs or is enforced as a prerequisite to open debate and discussion, rather than an intellectual ideal that ought to be taken as an absolute ethical truth.

It is useful surely as an adequate, succinct, catchy, and sometimes necessary regulation to be used when the medium of discussion encorporates a number of individuals who represent all the colour and variety of the social, cultural and intellectual spectrum.

Whether it be in parliament, on a web forum, in a discussion group, or a classroom, we are often met with complex social situations where a variety of people are discussing or delibarating upon topics to which they feel sure, skeptical or sensitive about.
In situations such as these, this rule exists in order for some semblance of ettiquette or mutual respect to be maintained. It exists to prevent some from being coarse or vulgar towards an (in this case singular and therefore irrelevent) individual, as much as it encourages others to rationalise and articulate, thus keeping "the peace".
Surely it is basic social code?
Though is it more than that?
As Aristotle said
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
This rule of which we are discussing, ought to be second nature to the intelligent, educated and courteous. It is a basic fundamental that is often absent, particularly when all manner of individuals come together to discuss something, and especially when the discussion takes place on a web forum where the individuals concerned are perhaps lacking in social skills or group ethics due to the anonymity of posting.
So yes i believe there is some truth, validity, and necessity to the concept.
But to me it is more of a unifying baseline, or a governing benchmark that exists as a pacifier for the discoursive masses, rather than a concept which holds up to substantial rational debate or meticulous ethical srupuilizing.

It is a fact that all situations are different. As are the examples you give. Certainly I think that the concept should not exist in order to excuse the individuals who hold and moreover actively deliberate upon their beliefs to the detrimental effect of mankind.
Fascism for example.
Fascism is wrong.
But let's not imagine that Winston Churchill stopped there out of some absurd courteousy or fear of offending the Nazi's as individuals.
Fascists, racists and anti-semetics as individuals or as an active body are also wrong and should be stopped or attacked.
In this case, a forum guideline, or buzz phrase regarding the basic ettiquette of debate is clearly innapropriate. It is not an absolute truth.
These extreme situations of genocide or human atrocity in which the individuals who hold the ideas are responsible for obvious wrondoings as a direct result of their aggressively upheld ideal or belief system are perfect examples of how the concept is flawed when it is falsely-applied or misused.
For all the times i've been thankful that the concept exists, or wished people would uphold it socially, there are also times in which I believe it is misused, thus resulting in my frustration.
The idea that we can believe anything, that all individuals have the right to uphold any belief system they wish to uphold, free from personal attack, is frankly absurd and incorrect if directly or indirectly there subscription to said beliefs are harming others.
Very recently for example, when at dinner with a group of friends and aquaintances, my wife uttered warnings along the lines of "attack ideas, not individuals" when I got particularly irate at a woman in our company who is a self-professed and actively practising "psychic."
She takes money from people who want to contact the dead, perhaps a recently deceased family member, and takes advantage of their obviously fragile and in some cases potentially dangerous emotional states, in order to spout her psuedo-spiritual unproven and unproffesional bollocks.
What's more, she along with a variety of others, think that this is acceptable human behaviour, even that it is quirky, mysterious, or harmless.
Personally I think it's fucking sick and so I attacked her actions and ideals in an open social environment, and yes, it made the meal slightly awkward for some.

However, the concept of which we are discussing here exists (i believe) in order to keep discussion rational and eloquent, and to prevent certain inapropriate behaviour.
It does not exists in order to excuse the actions of the individual, or to protect anybody from approriately delibarated "attack".
In the situation to which I refer, I did not keep quiet, but nor did I resort to (unecessary) obscenity or physical attack.
However I did publically ridicule the woman, socially humiliate her, and articulately but passionately disprove all possible counter attack. I need not discuss here the validity of my argument. I know she is no psychic and that such things are lies or mental illness. Equally do i know that in some cases, we need to attack both the Idea and the individual who upholds it.
This we must do in order to maintain the greater good.And in such circumstances the notion of "attack ideas, not people" is inapropriate and irrelevent.

At least that's my take on things!
I didn't intend it to become so verbose, but such is my absurd nature i'm afraid.
And anyway it is certainly ironic and somewhat paradoxical that this post, in itself, both maintains the theory (ie i'm not attacking you!) and simultaneously disproves it!

Time for a cup of tea i think.

Dj 303

 

[Jabberwocky]

Someone quotes Aristotle "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it." I refute them by saying "Aristotle was a loon. He believed there were only female vultures and that vultures were inseminated by the wind."

The philosophical contributions or art of someone who was a slave owner or a nazi or anti-suffrage isn't made without merit by the authors/artists poor politics or morals.

One reason for attack ideas not people is that attacking people is often a diversion, it is almost always a derailment from considering the merit or the practicality of the idea at hand. There are some cases though where an attack of people seems relevant. If someone is a claimant of facts or is presented as an authority, then cases of fraud or error have some place in a discussion.

Anyways ideas not people is a little bit about not being drawn into stuff that doesn't really have bearing on the validity of ideas but can seem to, sometimes becoming the dead end focus of a discussion.

 

[Nibblez]

The idea of attacking ideas and not people runs under the assumption that an individual and his/her ideas necessarily always have enough degrees of separation.

I would think that when an individual internalizes a certain idea, they often see their own existence as partially defined by it. An attack against such an idea would then be perceived by the individual to be an attack on them, and perhaps to a lesser extent, their reality(or perhaps perception? Although I would argue that an individual's perceptions play a significant role in defining their reality).

Or perhaps an alternative take on the issue would be that in both your examples you are not really attacking an idea in the sense that these ideas have become so intertwined with a collective identity shared by those that subscribe to it that any attack on one is perceived as an attack on the other.

I wish I could be more concise and convey this point with better diction, but alas, lack of sleep has caught up to me.

 

[DJ 303]

Someone quotes Aristotle "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it." I refute them by saying "Aristotle was a loon. He believed there were only female vultures and that vultures were inseminated by the wind."

Sure. feel free to refute.
Picking up on one quote that I added and then selecting a quote to somehow invalidate it, denotes a failure to read or comprehend my point in it's entirety.
And besides, to highlight the invalid nature or absurdity of a certain idea or quote, does not automatically invalidate eveything that person has ever said.

Still, this is way off the point.
My argument is not based on the ideas of Aristotle.

 

[morpher001]

OP

I agree with what you seem to be saying, its virtually impossible to have a meaningful discussion about any issue involving a macroscopic group of people. Be it religion, politics, ethnic groups... for all the reasons you stated it almost inevitably this breaks down into a meaningless argument over semantics because people feel like they are being personally attacked.

Is this rule - which is quite popular I find even outside of BL and fora in general - more than less a way for people to weasel out of political-correctness norms while trying to attack a group?

This, in my view, is a real double edged sword. I think you are saying that because one must generalise when discussing a macroscopic group, your concern is that people use this as an excuse to take the generalisation too far. Certainly plenty of examples of that throughout history.

My concern though is in the opposite direction. I feel that the weight of political correctness prevents the making of appropriate distinction (either positive or negative distinction as the case may be) regarding any given group. I think this willful blindness frequently stands in the way of true progress through understanding.

Its a balancing act. My feeling is that we are a bit far gone into political correctness at this point in time, at least in my part of the world.

 

[morpher001]

However, let's take the idea (or concept, rather) of "Masculinity" for a second example.

If I were to tackle the idea, I'd say something like: "The hallmark of masculinity is a sense of constant insecurity." I tackled the idea; I did not attack a single men.

I know this is off topic now, but I'm curious to know if thats your actual view of the defining hallmark or just a random example you came up with?

 

[ebola?]

Is this rule - which is quite popular I find even outside of BL and fora in general - more than less a way for people to weasel out of political-correctness norms while trying to attack a group?

When applied properly, I don't think so. The idea here is to maintain the validity of the argument as an argument by applying only premises that are relevant to the argument. So to return to your example, if one is to state:

"Christianity is inherently violent and encourages bloodshed," one doesn't have an argument, so there is no validity per se, and there can thus be no fallacies.

1 (valid):

"Christianity is inherently violent, encouraging bloodshed, as is evident by its lengthy, sprawling history of justifying war."

We might disagree with either premise, or disagree with the implicit warrant, tying together a religion's aggregate characteristics with its historical political uses, but the basic logical linkage stands.

2 (invalid, ad-hominem attack):

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

Here, one is trying to use the qualities of a discussant to justify an argument without speaking to the argument itself. Such is the essence of an ad-hominem.

3 (invalid, but technically not an ad-hominem):

"Christianity is a violent religion, as is evident by the inability of Christians on this board to discuss the issue in a calm manner."

This one's tricky. Here, the behavior of people on the board is being used as empirical evidence to justify a more general claim. Because the data are relevant to the general claim, it's technically not an ad-hominem attack, although it fulfills the function of insulting people. Rather, this is a statistical fallacy, in using imprecise, biased measurements of an unrepresentative sample to justify one's claim.

Now, I don't think that people use the principle of avoiding personal attacks to conceal and justify personal attacks particularly often as it tends to be ineffective; for example, most Christians would likely find "Christianity is a violent religion" as offensive as, "This (prototypical) group of Christians is violent".

ebola

 

[P A]

Cool thread topic. I've been simultaneously irked and intrigued by the degree of rampant misunderstanding on internet discussion boards surrounding the annoying cliche of the "personal attack."

2 (invalid, ad-hominem attack):

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

Although the bulk of Ebola's post thoroughly delineated the requisite distinctions that must be made before addressing the muddy topic of 'ad hominem' arguments and the tiresome (and somewhat related) "personal attack," the example provided in [2] was pretty weak. If I remember correctly, the 'argumentum ad hominem' is a formal fallacy characterized by its failure to forge a relevant argument/counterargument by completely disregarding a premise whilst deriding the respective speaker him-/herself; this circumvention of relevant discussion hinges entirely upon the purported repute of the speaker, as opposed the actual content of the speech itself.

I'm probably mistaken, but it looks to me like Ebola has conflated a self-affirming, question-begging premise with a fundamentally 'ad hominem' one. A more fitting example (I think) could be made thusly:

"Professor Richard Mongler has claimed religious texts to be riddled with material faslehoods. It has been claimed that Mongler has had many extramarital affairs and has committed foolish/destructive acts as of late. Additionally, he has made inaccurate claims in the past. Clearly, he is not someone to whom I would ever defer for counsel on any matter. As such, his premise is probably false and should be swiftly dismissed from consideration."

Most argumenta ad hominem are far less transparent, boldface, and stream-of-consciousness-esque than my example, and are more typically found within the social and political spectra than academic ones. They rely exclusively upon a prospective audience's amenablilty to credulous persuasion on entirely personal grounds, for whatever reason. They can be distinguished from other fallacies by their sole dependence upon the supposed credibility of the speaker, as opposed to the validity of the claim or proposition itself.

Also, to everyone on the World Wide Web (not in this thread) who apparently can't comprehend the distinction - 'ad hominem' is a formal logical fallacy that attempts to prey upon speaker's personal presumed attributes (usually flaws) in a vain effort to address the original point in question. This is not synonymous with the tiresome allegation of the "personal attack," which pretty much amounts to saying "fuck you" to a fellow discussant in the middle of an argument. This is usually accompanied by genuine outrage on the part of the "attacker," and (unless fused with a true 'ad hominem') is almost never encapsulated by an attempt at a relevant point of discussion. Expression of feeling/=attempt at logical argument.

So Jamshyd, I wouldn't consider any of your purported "personal" arguments to be offensive over and above their implicitly bold style of rhetoric and (some would say) tactless construction, neither of which preclude the establishment of a sensible premise in the first place. Simply rephrasing those blanket statements regarding an aggregate of homologous religious affiliations and a particular psychosexual characterization in a less direct and conventional manner (like E-prime, for instance) could eschew plenty of resultant indignation. The remaining indignant fury can be disregarded, as I read the eponymous rule being discussed as a catchy call for argumentative civility, and not as an ultimate dictum of dialogue. As many have mentioned, its use can frequently be misplaced, as is the case with any other familiar rule of thumb.

 

[ebola?]

I'm probably mistaken, but it looks to me like Ebola has conflated a self-affirming, question-begging premise with a fundamentally 'ad hominem' one.

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

 

[Psychodelirium]

P A said it better than I will, but to sum up, not every statement or argument that is potentially offensive to someone or some group is necessarily an ad hom or a personal attack. Sound arguments may offend the sensitive while making good logical sense. Ad homs and personal attacks offend without making sense. I find that, as usual, political correctness has muddied the waters.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

This is a very interesting idea, Jamshyd, that I've thought about from time to time. Namely, I've thought about it when in societies that have no such concept of separating the said from the sayer (China and Japan). In these societies, one cannot really openly attack a person's expressed ideas without attacking the person, and bringing some amount of disgrace upon them if what they said is publicly shown to be wrong.

I am convinced this explains the popularity of anonymous forums like 2chan in Japan. 2chan is a serious cultural force and source of public opinion in Japan, as compared to 4chan in the Anglophone world, which is a peripheral sewage trench. Completely anonymous forums, where no one knows who anyone else is, gives Japanese people the ability to debate ideas without risking anyone's face, and without sullying the discussion of ideas by needing to give due consideration to one's own status in relation to the person with whom one is speaking.

My point is, I really think the idea of 'attacking the idea without attacking the person' is something of a Western social fiction, which works and takes on a sort of reality when everyone involved believes in it. Because let's face it, every person's default state is to take it personally and feel foolish, if not outright threatened, when someone who isn't a close confidant speaking in private attacks something one says. Being wrong is a very real form of weakness, after all. Often a transitory one, to be sure. But real nonetheless. One has to be trained to not take offense when a declaration of any sort is shot down.

Maybe I'm just incorrigibly Western, but I believe that there is real merit in keeping faith in another person's ability to be right, even when tendering a vote of no confidence on something specific they've said. I say this for two reasons. First, because none of us are always right. Secondly and most importantly, thought, because what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger. People given the freedom to express wrong notions without putting their entire reputations on the line, will be less hesitant to try coming up with new ideas, and in the long run will produce and express more good ideas that they might not have otherwise dared to.

In other words, 'attack ideas, not people' is a very good example of forgiveness in practice.

 

[ebola?]

Not really, giving the prior post (and thus according response). That post provides evidence for Jamshyd's assertion
However, maybe the former was a misinterpreted joke...

 

[ebola?]

A musing: maybe defaming an ideology, condition, practice, etc. serves well as a crypto-personal attack (not strictly an ad-hom), but rather a fallacious (or over-simplified) syllogism:

eg,

1. Marxist-Leninism is .violent, macro-regionally chaotically disruptive, and elitist
2. therefore, none sympathetic with the ideology (like JohnDoe420RavR) are to be trusted.

I just restated the OP; sorry.

I don't know the fallacy's name, but notice that its a rough inverse of an ad hom.

 

[vegan]

sorry guys, i skipped all but the beginning of the first post

no time to read. hope i'm not being a parrot

i don't really see any problem, contradiction or else

how the reader feels about your post doesn't change what you are arguing about

because the reader is upset doesn't mean you attacked him rather than his ideas.

if you would have written the same text to any other poster, then you certainly didn't take who he was into account


it's up to the reader to understand that although he shares ideas that you disagree with, the argument is nothing personal against him


i have this problem whenever i talk about vegetarianism

i don't care who i'm talking to and if i'm talking to a meat-eater, i'm not adjusting my speech in order to diss him
but meat-eaters instantly consider that they are being attacked

and arguing becomes pointless because they feel that i'm aggressing them and don't consider the arguments anymore
they just try to defend themselves with the first heard a million times before non-argument that comes to mind

 

[ebola?]

i have this problem whenever i talk about vegetarianism

Er...I haven't often seen you make personal attacks.

ebola

 

[greenberryhaze]

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.

 

[P A]

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

For one thing, I know that I certainly wouldn't. Needless to say, I would sooner defer to Tao for any and all information regarding complex mathematics than the clever student, but this says nothing as to the ultimate validity of their statements, each of which should be taken at boldface for the sake of intellectual impartiality.

In other words, you would be just as wrong in arguing that the student's blog post was inaccurate simply because she was of lesser status along the academic hierarchy as I would be were I to take the ad hominem stance against Professor Mongler as proposed above - and for the exact same reason. After all, Tao could , in fact, be wrong; whether or not the student is more or less likely to be wrong in a similar case is a matter of probability, not of actuality - and amidst your talk of evidence (which does indeed often rely heavily upon principles of statistical inference), you've conflated the two.

You've also invoked the 'ad hominem's' corollary, the 'argumentum ad verecundiam,' or 'appeal to authority,' which is another among the formal fallacies (i.e. whenever one invokes such a fallacy, they will most definitely be wrong).

 

[greenberryhaze]

In other words, you would be just as wrong in arguing that the student's blog post was inaccurate simply because she was of lesser status along the academic hierarchy as I would be were I to take the ad hominem stance against Professor Mongler as proposed above - and for the exact same reason.

I was taking as a premise that both blog posts are equally valid.

After all, Tao could , in fact, be wrong; whether or not the student is more or less likely to be wrong in a similar case is a matter of probability, not of actuality

This is more or less all I was saying. Tao's post provides more evidence for the hypothesis in question, from a probability standpoint.

If instead of just an argument we were talking about a complete proof, then I don't think the identity of the author should be taken into consideration.

 

[Nibblez]

I was taking as a premise that both blog posts are equally valid.



This is more or less all I was saying. Tao's post provides more evidence for the hypothesis in question, from a probability standpoint.

If instead of just an argument we were talking about a complete proof, then I don't think the identity of the author should be taken into consideration.

Please refer to P A's last sentence.