4 ms·

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

by 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.
  - anoncareer0212 6y ago
    I cannot believe you went ad hominem and wrote all that to justify making up a definition for ad hominem because you're not happy with the dictionary definition. Be well, sir. I'll try to digest later, not in the mood when it starts off with "ah HA my interlocutor is being intentionally obtuse, that explains why they believe in dictionaries! If I just tell them that, I'm sure it'll be convincing!" Edit: Alas, it appears I can no longer read it, got flagged. Must have been even worse than the bit I did read :/
    - astine 6y ago
      "Alas, it appears I can no longer read it, got flagged. Must have been even worse than the bit I did read :/ " Nope, that was the only unfriendly thing I said. Just turn on showdead if you want to read it.

by astine 6y ago

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.
- anoncareer0212 6y ago
  I cannot believe you went ad hominem and wrote all that to justify making up a definition for ad hominem because you're not happy with the dictionary definition. Be well, sir. I'll try to digest later, not in the mood when it starts off with "ah HA my interlocutor is being intentionally obtuse, that explains why they believe in dictionaries! If I just tell them that, I'm sure it'll be convincing!" Edit: Alas, it appears I can no longer read it, got flagged. Must have been even worse than the bit I did read :/
  - astine 6y ago
    "Alas, it appears I can no longer read it, got flagged. Must have been even worse than the bit I did read :/ " Nope, that was the only unfriendly thing I said. Just turn on showdead if you want to read it.