3 ms·

Very nice post, thank you! Here's something to think about. According to Aristotle's Rhetoric, a person making a point to an audience has three things to offe

Very nice post, thank you! Here's something to think about. According to Aristotle's Rhetoric, a person making a point to an audience has three things to offer: -- Ethos -- who they are and why they speak with authority. -- Pathos -- empathy with the audience. -- Logos -- the substance of the argument. So, an opponent can try to undermine any of these three. Undermining a person's ethos can be nasty "yo' momma" style language, or it can be more sophisticated. If the person's argument relies on their ethos, however, it may be legitimate. For example, when Nobel laureate William Schockley argues for racial eugenics on the strength of his physics background, it's legitimate to say "Professor, your expertise is in physics, not genetics." This is helpful with anyone who says, effectively, "I'm a bigshot so what I say must be true." Undermining pathos can also be helpful. For example, "thus-and-such software marketer doesn't want to help you and me, she wants to sell more software licenses for her company. Do not blindly accept her claims that her product is better." Of course, undermining the logos -- the substance of the argument -- is a very effective way to disagree. But, my point is, undermining a speaker's pathos and ethos are also legitimate, especially when their argument critically depends on those aspects of their rhetoric.

murrayh 19y ago
I don't think that undermining the speaker is a valid way of arguing. It is irrelevant who states the argument; an argument is as equally as strong whoever makes it. I can copy and paste another's argument verbatim, and then change all the "I" references to "person X" references, and the argument would be identical. What you can do is refute evidence. So if the speaker presents one of their own claims as evidence, you can sometimes invalidate that claim by undermining the speaker's pathos and ethos. NOTE: When I say valid, I mean it in terms of determining what is correct, not what convinces people.
- astine 19y ago
  Aristotle was speaking in terms of what convinces people. This is only his 'Rhetoric' however. His 'Logic' deals with correct arguments. However, I do think that there are cases where an ad hominem is correct however. If someone's argument is based on his own authority, and his authority is widely acknowledged, then the only way to attack the argument is to attack the arguer. One example is the repeated misuse of Einstein as an authority om things like economics or theology.

murrayh 19y ago

I don't think that undermining the speaker is a valid way of arguing. It is irrelevant who states the argument; an argument is as equally as strong whoever makes it. I can copy and paste another's argument verbatim, and then change all the "I" references to "person X" references, and the argument would be identical. What you can do is refute evidence. So if the speaker presents one of their own claims as evidence, you can sometimes invalidate that claim by undermining the speaker's pathos and ethos. NOTE: When I say valid, I mean it in terms of determining what is correct, not what convinces people.

astine 19y ago
Aristotle was speaking in terms of what convinces people. This is only his 'Rhetoric' however. His 'Logic' deals with correct arguments. However, I do think that there are cases where an ad hominem is correct however. If someone's argument is based on his own authority, and his authority is widely acknowledged, then the only way to attack the argument is to attack the arguer. One example is the repeated misuse of Einstein as an authority om things like economics or theology.