CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Ad Hominem [HD]

Summary

This video, presented by Paul Henne, introduces the ad hominem fallacy, which involves attacking the person making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself. Using examples, such as arguments about pets and veganism, Henne explores four types of ad hominem fallacies: abusive, circumstantial, tu quoque (you also), and guilt by association. The video highlights why attacking someone's character or circumstances is fallacious and explains that personal attacks fail to engage with the actual substance of an argument.

Takeaways

• 🔍 The ad hominem fallacy involves attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.
• ⚖️ The phrase 'ad hominem' means 'to the person,' which reflects the nature of the fallacy.
• 🐱 The example of Vlad's argument about cats vs. dogs illustrates how attacking someone's character (e.g., calling them a jerk) doesn't invalidate their argument.
• 🛑 The abusive ad hominem fallacy occurs when someone insults the person rather than addressing their argument.
• 📋 The circumstantial ad hominem fallacy happens when someone's argument is rejected because of their circumstances (e.g., accusing Catherine of bias because she works for a vegan company).
• 🔄 The tu quoque fallacy involves dismissing an argument because the person making it is hypocritical (e.g., Catherine eats meat but argues against it).
• 👥 Guilt by association is another form of ad hominem, where someone's argument is dismissed because of their association with someone with poor character (e.g., comparing Catherine to Hitler).
• 🤔 Despite someone's character or actions, their argument can still be valid, as personal flaws don't automatically make an argument false.
• 💡 An argument's validity depends on its premises and logical structure, not the person making it.
• 🎓 Philosophers acknowledge that there are situations where a person's standing might be relevant, but this requires careful consideration.

Q & A

What is the meaning of 'ad hominem'?

'Ad hominem' is a Latin phrase that means 'to the person.' It refers to a fallacy in which someone attacks the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself.

How is an ad hominem fallacy different from a valid critique?

In an ad hominem fallacy, the focus is on attacking the character or circumstances of the person making the argument instead of engaging with the argument's content. A valid critique, on the other hand, addresses the actual premises and conclusions of the argument.

What is the 'abusive' ad hominem fallacy?

The 'abusive' ad hominem fallacy occurs when someone attacks the character of the person making the argument. For example, calling someone a 'jerk' to dismiss their argument without addressing the merits of the argument itself.

What is the 'circumstantial' ad hominem fallacy?

The 'circumstantial' ad hominem fallacy happens when someone dismisses an argument based on the circumstances or motives of the person making it. For instance, rejecting someone's argument because they work for a company that might benefit from the argument, without addressing the argument itself.

What is the 'tu quoque' ad hominem fallacy?

The 'tu quoque' fallacy, or 'you also,' occurs when someone dismisses an argument by pointing out that the person making the argument does not practice what they preach. This doesn't address the validity of the argument itself.

Can you explain the 'guilt by association' ad hominem fallacy?

In the 'guilt by association' ad hominem fallacy, a person rejects an argument by associating the person making the argument with someone of poor character. For example, dismissing someone's argument because it resembles an argument made by a notorious figure like Hitler.

Why is it a fallacy to attack a person's character instead of their argument?

It’s a fallacy because the character or circumstances of the person making the argument are usually irrelevant to the argument's validity. An argument should be judged based on its premises and logic, not on who is presenting it.

Why does the script use examples involving Vlad and Catherine?

The script uses these examples to illustrate different types of ad hominem fallacies in a concrete and relatable way. Vlad and Catherine represent typical scenarios where someone's character or circumstances are attacked instead of their argument.

What would be a valid way to critique Catherine’s argument about veganism?

A valid critique would engage with the content of her argument, such as challenging whether animals are truly sentient or questioning the premise that killing sentient beings for food is immoral.

How might philosophers further explore the ad hominem fallacy?

Philosophers may explore when a person’s character or standing is relevant to an argument. For example, in cases where someone's expertise or bias might affect the reliability of their argument, but this requires deeper discussion, which the script notes is beyond its scope.