Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association)
Summary
TLDRThe video script discusses the ad hominem fallacy, particularly the 'guilt by association' type, which was prevalent during the 2008 US federal elections. It critiques how critics used Barack Obama's associations with radicals to imply his own radical beliefs, highlighting the weak logic and vagueness of such arguments. The script suggests that while guilt by association is generally a fallacy, specific evidence linking a person's beliefs to their associations could potentially provide a valid argument, differentiating between mere association and direct evidence of shared beliefs.
Takeaways
- 🗣️ Ad hominem attacks include personal attacks and more subtle forms like guilt by association.
- 📊 The 2008 US federal elections saw frequent use of guilt by association against candidates.
- 🔗 Guilt by association arguments suggest that a person's beliefs are influenced by their associates' views.
- 🤔 Critics argue that guilt by association is not always a fallacy but can be when it lacks logical connection.
- 🧩 The argument's weakness stems from vague terms like 'associated with' and missing premises.
- 🚫 Generalizations about people's associations being indicative of their beliefs are often implausible.
- 🔍 Specific evidence or direct statements are needed to strengthen guilt by association arguments.
- 🚨 The argument is fallacious when it solely relies on association without additional supporting evidence.
- 🤝 Having friendly relations with someone does not necessarily mean endorsing their past actions or beliefs.
- 💡 If an argument is based on tangible evidence rather than just association, it's no longer a guilt by association fallacy.
Q & A
What is an ad hominem fallacy?
-An ad hominem fallacy is a type of logical fallacy where an argument is made against a person's character, rather than the substance or validity of their argument.
What are the different forms of ad hominem attacks mentioned in the script?
-The script mentions that ad hominem attacks can range from blatant personal attacks to more subtle forms, with a specific emphasis on 'guilt by association' as a common and subtle form.
Why was the 2008 federal election in the US highlighted in the script?
-The 2008 federal election was highlighted because the script's author observed a notable number and frequency of guilt by association arguments used against candidates, particularly Barack Obama.
How is guilt by association used as an argument against a political candidate?
-In the script, guilt by association is used against a candidate by arguing that because the candidate has associations with individuals or groups that hold radical or controversial views, the candidate is likely to hold similar views or is not being honest about their own beliefs.
What is the logical weakness in the guilt by association argument as described in the script?
-The logical weakness lies in the vagueness of the term 'associated with' and the lack of a premise that connects the association with the conclusion that the person probably believes what their associate believes.
Why might guilt by association be considered a fallacy even when the association is specific?
-Even when the association is specific, guilt by association is a fallacy if the argument relies entirely on the association to drive the conclusion without additional evidence or if the generalizations made about people's beliefs based on their associations are implausible.
What would be an example of a non-fallacious argument based on association?
-A non-fallacious argument based on association would involve specific evidence, such as recorded statements or actions, that directly support the conclusion about a person's beliefs or actions, rather than just their association with someone.
How does the script differentiate between a fallacious guilt by association argument and a valid argument involving association?
-The script differentiates by stating that a fallacious guilt by association argument relies solely on the association without additional evidence, while a valid argument involves specific information that directly supports the conclusion.
What is the role of evidence in strengthening an argument involving association, according to the script?
-In the script, evidence such as recorded statements or actions that directly support the conclusion about a person's beliefs is necessary to strengthen an argument involving association and avoid the ad hominem fallacy.
Why might an argument that uses guilt by association be more prominent against one candidate over another?
-An argument that uses guilt by association might be more prominent against one candidate over another due to various factors such as the nature of their associations, the media's focus, or the strategy of the opposing campaign.
Outlines
🗳️ Ad Hominem Fallacy in Politics
This paragraph discusses the ad hominem fallacy, particularly the 'guilt by association' form, which was prominent in the 2008 US federal elections. The paragraph explains how critics used this fallacy against Barack Obama by associating him with radical figures and suggesting that his beliefs were more extreme than he claimed. It highlights that while some forms of this argument can be valid if specific and evidence-based, the general use of guilt by association without such specificity is logically weak and relies on implausible generalizations.
🤝 The Weakness of Guilt by Association
The second paragraph elaborates on why guilt by association arguments are generally weak. It points out that such arguments often rely on implausible generalizations about people's behavior and beliefs based on their associations. The paragraph contrasts a weak guilt by association argument with a stronger one that would be based on direct evidence, such as recorded statements. It concludes by emphasizing that when an argument is based on tangible evidence rather than mere association, it is no longer a guilt by association argument but one based on more substantial proof.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡ad hominem
💡guilt by association
💡Barack Obama
💡John McCain
💡logic
💡fallacy
💡association
💡hypothesis
💡evidence
💡generalization
💡Bill Ayers
Highlights
Ad hominem fallacies can take various forms, including personal attacks and guilt by association.
The 2008 US federal elections saw a notable use of guilt by association against Barack Obama.
Critics argued Obama's radical associations indicated a more radical stance than he admitted.
Guilt by association often aims to charge hypocrisy or misrepresentation.
John McCain was also criticized for his associations, though less frequently.
The logical weakness of guilt by association is due to missing premises and vague terms.
To strengthen the argument, a specific premise linking association to belief is needed.
Vague claims of association are not informative enough to support the argument.
Certain associations might give reason to question honesty, but details are often not provided.
The argument relies on implausible generalizations about people's beliefs and actions.
Examples of guilt by association include Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers.
Ayers' past as a Weather Underground co-founder was used to question Obama's stance.
The argument's weakness is exposed by the lack of a direct link between association and belief.
Generalizations that friends condone each other's actions are often incorrect.
Political affiliations do not automatically imply shared radical views.
A strong argument would require evidence of private endorsement of radical views.
If the association contains direct evidence, it's no longer a guilt by association argument.
Guilt by association is a fallacy when it relies solely on association without additional evidence.
Transcripts
ad hominem ins can come in a variety
forms the most blatant forms involve
personal attacks these are the abuse of
that homonyms but some forms are more
subtle a very common form of ad hominem
fallacy involves guilt by association I
was inspired to do a tutorial on this
after the recent 2008 federal elections
here in the US criticism of candidates
based on their associations has always
been a part of politics but the number
and frequency of guilt by association
arguments that we heard in this campaign
was notable in my experience at least we
saw it most often it was criticisms of
Barack Obama from various conservative
circles where it was argued that Obama
had many radical associations and that
he's indicated that he himself was much
more socially and politically radical
than he was letting on this has the
structure of a guilt by association
argument X believes a X has an
association with Y and you conclude that
Y probably also believes a not everyone
classifies guilt by association as net
hominem argument but it's easy to see
how the main ideas can be used to
generate an ad hominem type argument
this is one way of phrasing the
reasoning Obama says X but he's
associated with people who seem to deny
X or say other things Y that seemed to
contradict X so we conclude that Obama
probably doesn't believe X or is more
sympathetic to Y then he lets on the
conclusion of an argument like this
usually isn't very specific but its
primary use is to ground a charge of
hypocrisy or misrepresentation this is
generally how it was used against Obama
I don't want to suggest by the way that
only Republicans are guilty of this sort
of reasoning one of Obama's main
political tactics was to stress John
McCain's associations with President
Bush and the policies of his
administration but one could argue that
guilt by association was a much more
prominent feature of the campaign
against Obama than it was in the
campaign against McCain certainly there
was more media discussion of the use of
this argument form against Obama than
there was of its use against McCain now
back to our main concern is this fallacy
looking at the argument above it's clear
that as stated the argument is bad and
it's bad because the logic is weak the
conclusion simply doesn't follow from
those premises why does it follow two
reasons first it's missing a premise
that connects being associated with
someone who believes why with the
conclusion that you probably believe why
two she'd have to had a premise to that
effect to fix the logic second the term
associated width is too vague to be
informative any defensible version of
this argument would have to get very
specific about the kind of Association
that is at issue and the added premise
to fix the logic would have to say
something specific about how that
particular Association gives reason to
believe that a person is lying about
their stated beliefs now in principle
this is doable certain kinds of
associations may give good reason to
question someone's honesty but very
often these details aren't given and the
argument relies on vague and general
claims like the one above under these
conditions the argument is bad and
guilty of the ad hominem fallacy of
guilt by association but I said that in
principle one could make an argument
like this work if you are more specific
about the kind of Association you have
in mind and how that Association
supports the conclusion now the problem
with this strategy is that the
additional premises needed to make logic
work tend to rely on generalizations
that aren't very plausible or claims of
a specific nature for which there just
isn't good evidence to make the point
let's look at some examples in the case
of Bill Ayers one of the ways that the
guilt by association argument is played
out looks like this The Weather
Underground was a radical protest group
that a is co-founded in the 60s and in
the sixties and seventies they were
responsible for some bombings of
government buildings as part of their
protest against the Vietnam War
Ayers is now a professor of education at
the University of Chicago and for many
years he's been active in education
reform in the fight against poverty in
the Chicago area
he and Obama met in Chicago in the
mid-1990s while Obama was working as a
community organizer they've served on a
couple of boards together and by both of
their admissions have generally had
friendly they're not
close relations over the years now if
the conclusion were after is that in
virtue of this association with heirs we
have good reason to think that Obama
actually condones the bombings of those
government buildings carried out by The
Weather Underground but it's obvious
that the logic is still weak to fix it
you need to promise like this
anyone who has friendly relations with a
person of the sort described in premise
2 probably condones the actions of that
person this would fix the logic and make
the arguments strong however this
premise as a generalization is wildly
implausible we can all think of examples
of friends and acquaintances we have
who've done bad things in the past that
we judge to be wrong but nevertheless
remain friends or acquaintances with
them the same applies for political
affiliations having friendly relations
with people who lean strongly to the
left doesn't by itself give good reason
to think that you lean strongly to the
left this is what I mean when I say that
guilt by association arguments often
rely on generalizations about people
that are implausible now maybe Obama is
more sympathetic to radical views than
he lets on my point is that this kind of
argument it doesn't give us good reason
to think so let's take a contrast an
argument that would give us a good
reason might look like this if we knew
maybe because we had tape-recorded
evidence that Obama had private meetings
with Ayers where he admits that he
condones the activities of The Weather
Underground but acknowledges that he
can't say this in public without
destroying his political career then of
course we'd have good reason to accept
the conclusion if the premises were true
this would be a good argument but this
is the problem we don't have any
evidence that this new premise is true
also note that when your association is
very specific like this and contains
information that directly supports the
conclusion then you're not really
dealing with the guilt by association
argument anymore since the mere
association with Ayers isn't what's
driving the inference it's the tape
recorded evidence of Obama's own words
that is driving the inference I think
this is a common pattern with guilt by
association arguments if the argument is
running solely on the Association then
it's generally a bad argument
but if the Association is specific
enough it contains information that
directly supports the conclusion then
it's really not a guilt by association
arguing anymore it's an argument based
on more tangible and relevant forms of
evidence BIP shot is that guilt by
association is a fallacy when the
argument relies entirely on the
Association to drive the conclusion but
if it relies on other kinds of
information that it's not a guilt by
association argument anymore
تصفح المزيد من مقاطع الفيديو ذات الصلة
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)