4 ms·

Uh, no. "You made a bad argument and therefore you are stupid" is not an ad-hominem argument "You are stupid and therefore your argument is bad" _is_ an ad-homi

by astine 6y ago

Uh, no. "You made a bad argument and therefore you are stupid" is not an ad-hominem argument "You are stupid and therefore your argument is bad" _is_ an ad-hominem argument. The OP's comment clearly follows the pattern of the former, not the later, so it is not an ad-hominem. Bear in mind that tripletao's thesis is clearly that the NY article is a bad faith essay. That's his conclusion, not his premise.

anoncareer0212 6y ago
This is one of the most intense HN nerdsnipes I've seen in a while, reminds me of code reviews :P TL;DR: google.com -> define ad hominem -> "(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining" -> go back to the quote we're arguing about, it reads: "so the reporter is either stupid or disingenuous" -> looks like those are words directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining y'all are mistaking doing a technical word by word breakdown of an argument and picking which words are which logical fallacies with, well, the definition of ad hominem
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- astine 6y ago
  You might prefer a looser definition of ad-hominem, but I think that the technical definition holds value. This looser definition reads like a means of implying that the poster's intent was different that what it was.
  - anoncareer0212 6y ago
    It is mildly humorous that we've gotten this far in and you're telling me "hm I don't like the definition in the dictionary, we should pick something more technical" (???) I have a CS and law degree and IMHO the divide here is the CS people tend to believe "ad hominem" has a technical definition beyond, well, the definition
    - TulliusCicero 6y ago
      > "(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person >> rather << than the position they are maintaining" You seem to have missed the operative word there: rather. Saying that someone's argument is bad so they must be real dumb means you're saying "A (the reasoning attack) implies B (character attack)", not "B (character attack) means I don't have to even bother with A". The latter is an ad hominem, the former is not. An ad hominem here would be, "jesus I already know this author is so dumb/bad that I don't even have to bother addressing any of their arguments". "This author's reasoning is awful, so clearly they're dumb/bad" is simply not the same thing.
    - astine 6y ago
      You don't have to be particularly astute to know that the term 'ad-hominem' refers to a particular informal logical fallacy. (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/, fallacy 13) The definition used in Webster is a more colloquial definition based on usage. English dictionaries usually take a descriptivist rather than prescriptivist approach to their work. However, that usage is based on a misusage of the earlier definition. To argue that someone's argument is wrong because of who they are is a logical fallacy, and something people actually do quite a lot. The term for that and as far as I know the only term for that, is 'ad-hominem.' To attack someone's character instead of something they wrote is usually not considered very nice, but is not a logical fallacy (unless we're talking about the abusive form of ad-hominem, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.) Given that the former needs to called out on occasion, that that one can use other language to call out the later (just say 'personal attacks'), it makes sense that reserving the term 'ad-hominem' for the former use makes practical sense. Even if you don't agree with my reasoning that it's better to reserve the term to refer to the logical fallacy, many people really do use the term exclusively to refer to the logical fallacy and don't use the dictionary definition you listed. Citing a dictionary to resolve a language usage dispute is a bit of a dodge because dictionaries are typically descriptivist when these disputes are inherently prescriptivist (or at the very least stipulative.)If people are getting confused by what you are saying, it's better to clarify than to die on the hill of what the correct definition of a word should be. All of that is beside that fact that the reason people get upset about this issue--about the definition of ad-hominem--is that people using the later definition are often performing a bit of equivocation. They are using the later definition, which does not refer to a logical fallacy, to imply that a logical fallacy has occurred. This is a sort of slippery and dishonest debating tactic and I think that it rightly upsets people. If you did not intend to be deceptive, that's all well and good, but understand that that's a big part of why people are getting upset with you. edit: Removed the first sentence in which I accused that guy of arguing in bad faith. There's nothing else in this comment that is objectionable, AFAICT.
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  Dear God, the number of people who think any kind of insult constitutes an ad hominem would be hilarious if it wasn't so depressing. Ad hominem means you're replacing a reasoning based argument with character attacks. Throwing in character attacks on top of a reasoning based argument -- especially when the insults are just used as a conclusion -- is not what an ad hominem is. This is important, because the fact that this is what an ad hominem is, is why it's considered a logical fallacy. "Your argument is dumb because of X & Y, and also I think you suck" is not a logical fallacy. There is no fallacious thinking there. "I think you suck, therefore I don't even have to bother refuting X & Y, they're automatically wrong because of how much you suck" clearly is a logical fallacy: just because someone sucks, doesn't mean any possible reasoning of theirs is automatically invalid.
  - astine 6y ago
    It took me a moment to realize that the poster is trying to use a different definition of ad-hominem which isn't actually a logical fallacy. He's just criticizing the fact that the OP is bothering to criticize article's author at all. Personally, I don't like that usage because it cheapens the definition of ad-hominem and makes it harder to call someone out when they make an actual logical fallacy.
    - anoncareer0212 6y ago
      good lord I'm sorry it took that long, I thought were all pivoting off OP noting the argument would have been much better without the attacks
    - TulliusCicero 6y ago
      It's a sort of bait and switch tactic. They're relying on the notion that an ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy, which everyone agrees is bad, an invalid method of argument. Except that they're using a uselessly vague definition of ad hominem that amounts to "any insult", which is extra stupid because we already have a word for that: insult. So why even use the Latin, then, other than to make yourself sound fancy?

by astine 6y ago

anoncareer0212 6y ago

This is one of the most intense HN nerdsnipes I've seen in a while, reminds me of code reviews :P TL;DR: google.com -> define ad hominem -> "(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining" -> go back to the quote we're arguing about, it reads: "so the reporter is either stupid or disingenuous" -> looks like those are words directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining y'all are mistaking doing a technical word by word breakdown of an argument and picking which words are which logical fallacies with, well, the definition of ad hominem

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
astine 6y ago
You might prefer a looser definition of ad-hominem, but I think that the technical definition holds value. This looser definition reads like a means of implying that the poster's intent was different that what it was.
- anoncareer0212 6y ago
  It is mildly humorous that we've gotten this far in and you're telling me "hm I don't like the definition in the dictionary, we should pick something more technical" (???) I have a CS and law degree and IMHO the divide here is the CS people tend to believe "ad hominem" has a technical definition beyond, well, the definition
  - TulliusCicero 6y ago
    > "(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person >> rather << than the position they are maintaining" You seem to have missed the operative word there: rather. Saying that someone's argument is bad so they must be real dumb means you're saying "A (the reasoning attack) implies B (character attack)", not "B (character attack) means I don't have to even bother with A". The latter is an ad hominem, the former is not. An ad hominem here would be, "jesus I already know this author is so dumb/bad that I don't even have to bother addressing any of their arguments". "This author's reasoning is awful, so clearly they're dumb/bad" is simply not the same thing.
  - astine 6y ago
    You don't have to be particularly astute to know that the term 'ad-hominem' refers to a particular informal logical fallacy. (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/, fallacy 13) The definition used in Webster is a more colloquial definition based on usage. English dictionaries usually take a descriptivist rather than prescriptivist approach to their work. However, that usage is based on a misusage of the earlier definition. To argue that someone's argument is wrong because of who they are is a logical fallacy, and something people actually do quite a lot. The term for that and as far as I know the only term for that, is 'ad-hominem.' To attack someone's character instead of something they wrote is usually not considered very nice, but is not a logical fallacy (unless we're talking about the abusive form of ad-hominem, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.) Given that the former needs to called out on occasion, that that one can use other language to call out the later (just say 'personal attacks'), it makes sense that reserving the term 'ad-hominem' for the former use makes practical sense. Even if you don't agree with my reasoning that it's better to reserve the term to refer to the logical fallacy, many people really do use the term exclusively to refer to the logical fallacy and don't use the dictionary definition you listed. Citing a dictionary to resolve a language usage dispute is a bit of a dodge because dictionaries are typically descriptivist when these disputes are inherently prescriptivist (or at the very least stipulative.)If people are getting confused by what you are saying, it's better to clarify than to die on the hill of what the correct definition of a word should be. All of that is beside that fact that the reason people get upset about this issue--about the definition of ad-hominem--is that people using the later definition are often performing a bit of equivocation. They are using the later definition, which does not refer to a logical fallacy, to imply that a logical fallacy has occurred. This is a sort of slippery and dishonest debating tactic and I think that it rightly upsets people. If you did not intend to be deceptive, that's all well and good, but understand that that's a big part of why people are getting upset with you. edit: Removed the first sentence in which I accused that guy of arguing in bad faith. There's nothing else in this comment that is objectionable, AFAICT.
TulliusCicero 6y ago
Dear God, the number of people who think any kind of insult constitutes an ad hominem would be hilarious if it wasn't so depressing. Ad hominem means you're replacing a reasoning based argument with character attacks. Throwing in character attacks on top of a reasoning based argument -- especially when the insults are just used as a conclusion -- is not what an ad hominem is. This is important, because the fact that this is what an ad hominem is, is why it's considered a logical fallacy. "Your argument is dumb because of X & Y, and also I think you suck" is not a logical fallacy. There is no fallacious thinking there. "I think you suck, therefore I don't even have to bother refuting X & Y, they're automatically wrong because of how much you suck" clearly is a logical fallacy: just because someone sucks, doesn't mean any possible reasoning of theirs is automatically invalid.
- astine 6y ago
  It took me a moment to realize that the poster is trying to use a different definition of ad-hominem which isn't actually a logical fallacy. He's just criticizing the fact that the OP is bothering to criticize article's author at all. Personally, I don't like that usage because it cheapens the definition of ad-hominem and makes it harder to call someone out when they make an actual logical fallacy.
  - anoncareer0212 6y ago
    good lord I'm sorry it took that long, I thought were all pivoting off OP noting the argument would have been much better without the attacks
  - TulliusCicero 6y ago
    It's a sort of bait and switch tactic. They're relying on the notion that an ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy, which everyone agrees is bad, an invalid method of argument. Except that they're using a uselessly vague definition of ad hominem that amounts to "any insult", which is extra stupid because we already have a word for that: insult. So why even use the Latin, then, other than to make yourself sound fancy?