Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association)

Summary

The 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

00:00

🗳️ 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.

05:02

🤝 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.

Keywords

💡ad hominem

Ad hominem is a Latin term that translates to 'against the man' and refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy where an opponent's character, personal traits, or circumstances are attacked instead of engaging with their arguments or positions. In the video, ad hominem attacks are discussed as a common tactic in political discourse, particularly in the form of guilt by association, where a candidate's beliefs or actions are discredited based on their associations with others.

💡guilt by association

Guilt by association is a subtype of ad hominem fallacy where a person is implicated in wrongdoing or held guilty for the actions or beliefs of a group they are associated with, without direct evidence of their own culpability. The video script uses the 2008 U.S. federal elections as a backdrop to illustrate how candidates were criticized based on their associations, suggesting that their connections implied they held radical views.

💡Barack Obama

Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States, is mentioned in the script as an example of a candidate who faced guilt by association attacks during his campaign. Critics argued that his associations with individuals perceived as radical indicated that he himself held more radical views than he publicly admitted, highlighting how this fallacy was used against him.

💡John McCain

John McCain, a former U.S. Senator and the Republican nominee for President in the 2008 election, is referenced in the context of Obama's campaign strategy. The video suggests that Obama's team used guilt by association against McCain by linking him to then-President George W. Bush and his administration's policies, indicating a reciprocal use of this tactic in political campaigns.

💡logic

Logic, in the context of the video, pertains to the validity and soundness of arguments. The script critiques guilt by association arguments as logically weak because they do not necessarily follow a coherent line of reasoning from premise to conclusion. The video emphasizes the importance of logical structure in evaluating the strength of an argument.

💡fallacy

A fallacy is an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. The video focuses on the ad hominem fallacy, particularly guilt by association, as a type of flawed argumentation. It explains how these fallacies are used to discredit individuals based on superficial or irrelevant connections rather than on the merit of their arguments.

💡association

In the script, 'association' refers to the relationships or connections one has with other individuals or groups. The concept is central to the discussion of guilt by association, as it explores how an individual's perceived beliefs or actions are assumed to be influenced by or identical to those they are associated with, often without substantial evidence.

💡hypothesis

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation or assumption made on the basis of limited evidence, as a starting point for further investigation. The video suggests that guilt by association arguments often rely on hypotheses about an individual's beliefs based on their associations, which are then used to question their honesty or integrity.

💡evidence

Evidence, in the context of the video, refers to the tangible and relevant information that supports or refutes a claim or argument. The script contrasts the weak logic of guilt by association arguments, which rely on vague associations, with stronger arguments that are based on direct evidence, such as recorded statements or actions.

💡generalization

Generalization is the act of drawing broad conclusions from specific instances or examples. The video critiques guilt by association arguments for relying on implausible generalizations, such as assuming that friendly relations with someone who has a particular view implies that one must also hold that view, which is not always logically sound.

💡Bill Ayers

Bill Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground and later an education professor, is used in the script as a specific example of how guilt by association arguments can be misleading. The video discusses how Obama's association with Ayers was used to imply that Obama condoned the group's past actions, despite a lack of direct evidence supporting such a conclusion.

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