Difference between revisions of "Ad hominem"

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Line 4: Line 4:
 
}}
 
}}
  
The '''ad hominem attack''' is used to counter an unwanted position without going into the details of the argument. It means answering without addressing the point. These arguments are logically fallacious, because they rely on presenting irrelevant information, in an attempt to discredit a certain argument by attacking its source. Though questioning the source of information can certainly be valid in some cases, this type of argument is fallacious in cases where the attack has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, or in cases where the person using it fails to demonstrate how it relates to the discussion.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20180627163227/https://effectiviology.com/ad-hominem-fallacy/#How_to_avoid_using_ad_hominem_arguments_yourself</ref>
+
The '''ad hominem attack''' is used to counter an unwanted position without going into the details of the argument. It means answering without addressing the point. These arguments are logically fallacious, because they rely on presenting irrelevant information, in an attempt to discredit a certain argument by attacking its source. Though questioning the source of information can certainly be valid in some cases, this type of argument is fallacious in cases where the attack has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, or in cases where the person using it fails to demonstrate how it relates to the discussion.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20180627163227/https://effectiviology.com/ad-hominem-fallacy/</ref>
  
 
===See also===
 
===See also===

Revision as of 03:14, 13 October 2019

Concept.png Ad hominem Rdf-entity.pngRdf-icon.png
An ad hominem attack is an (counter) argument that attacks a person directly, without addressing the point that was made initially.

The ad hominem attack is used to counter an unwanted position without going into the details of the argument. It means answering without addressing the point. These arguments are logically fallacious, because they rely on presenting irrelevant information, in an attempt to discredit a certain argument by attacking its source. Though questioning the source of information can certainly be valid in some cases, this type of argument is fallacious in cases where the attack has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, or in cases where the person using it fails to demonstrate how it relates to the discussion.[1]

See also

The Function of Ad Hominem Arguments


 

Examples

Page nameDescription
"Conspiracy theory"An enemy image used to equate scepticism of government with craziness. It was developed by the CIA to try to contain doubt about the FBI's "Oswald did it, case closed" approach to the JFK assassination. It is now being associated with dangerous and violent insanity, in an effort to promote internet censorship of free speech.
Brown-baitingHarassing an individual or group by making claims of associations with National Socialism and fascism, often as a form of guilt by association and/or ad hominem, no matter how far-fetched.
Enemy imageA misleading view of a person or people, which hampers reconciliation and real communication
Many thanks to our Patrons who cover ~2/3 of our hosting bill. Please join them if you can.



References