3 ms·
Motive is incredibly important. Saying someone has a reason to be biased is not ad hominem. Saying they're a fucking hippie is.
by ahoyhere 15y ago
Motive is incredibly important. Saying someone has a reason to be biased is not ad hominem. Saying they're a fucking hippie is.
- fleitz 15y agoTotally agree with you, the thing I don't understand is why bias is so important, everyone is biased because people rarely talk about things in which they are disinterested.
- jdp23 15y agoFrom "How to Disagree"'s definition of Ad Hominem: For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond: Of course he would say that. He's a senator. This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator? http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
- yummyfajitas 15y agoIt's absolutely an ad hominem and a logical fallacy. The study itself is given. We can evaluate it without any knowledge whatsoever of the authors. The only time such a claim is not an ad hominem is when the target of the ad hominem is arguing from authority rather than from facts. Not ad hominem: "I'm a godlike scientist and I'm certain X is true. Trust me." -> "No, he's a poopie head. Don't trust him." In this case, the only reason we believe the speaker is because we believe him to be a godlike scientist. If he is not, we have little reason to believe him. Ad hominem: "Here is a study. The methodology and data are available. It claims X." -> "Don't trust him, he's a poopie head." In this case, the poopie-headed nature of the speaker is irrelevant. His methodology is either valid or invalid. The ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy in this case.