3 ms·

>The ad hominem fallacy is simply a guideline to evaluate the logical consistency of an argument. Precisely. So an argument is not logically consistent if it's

by hueving 10y ago

>The ad hominem fallacy is simply a guideline to evaluate the logical consistency of an argument. Precisely. So an argument is not logically consistent if it's just attacking the messenger instead of the content. Here's a hint: if your argument in any way relies on discounting the messenger, it's pretty weak and you should not make it. How many times have you been swayed by someone that says, "Well I would disregard this study because it's been done by a liberal." If you find that you don't have the time to evaluate an argument based on its merits, don't evaluate it at all. Otherwise your 'gut reaction', which is all an ad hominem is, is just dead weight on the discussion.

2muchcoffeeman 10y ago
I still find it useful to know about the person or organisation saying something. Some people and organisations have a history of being deceitful or irrational and it's pretty safe for a non-expert to just disregard their ideas with no consequence. Eg Ken Ham/AiG, Donald Trump, all conspiracy theorists.
enraged_camel 10y ago
>>Precisely. So an argument is not logically consistent if it's just attacking the messenger instead of the content. Here's a hint: if your argument in any way relies on discounting the messenger, it's pretty weak and you should not make it. Incorrect. Ad hominem can be non-fallicious. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem When a statement is challenged by making an ad hominem attack on its author, it is important to draw a distinction between whether the statement in question was an argument or a statement of fact (testimony). In the latter case the issues of the credibility of the person making the statement may be crucial. The statement that Cato Institute is a libertarian organization is a statement of fact, and may indeed be relevant when judging their credibility.

by hueving 10y ago

2muchcoffeeman 10y ago

I still find it useful to know about the person or organisation saying something. Some people and organisations have a history of being deceitful or irrational and it's pretty safe for a non-expert to just disregard their ideas with no consequence. Eg Ken Ham/AiG, Donald Trump, all conspiracy theorists.

enraged_camel 10y ago

>>Precisely. So an argument is not logically consistent if it's just attacking the messenger instead of the content. Here's a hint: if your argument in any way relies on discounting the messenger, it's pretty weak and you should not make it. Incorrect. Ad hominem can be non-fallicious. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem When a statement is challenged by making an ad hominem attack on its author, it is important to draw a distinction between whether the statement in question was an argument or a statement of fact (testimony). In the latter case the issues of the credibility of the person making the statement may be crucial. The statement that Cato Institute is a libertarian organization is a statement of fact, and may indeed be relevant when judging their credibility.