Minutus

here is something a colleague found on Google

"One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm . As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed."
------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm & http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases Reality
Next classes start October 28 & 29

Oh, lovely! What delicious use of well-mannered irony!

John
2009/10/31 Sheri Nakken >

I think it this is a somewhat facile assessment of what is being said. (OOps was that a long word or even latin? )
In every other area of life we are told that it is more productive to make our points by criticising ideas and actions rather than the person. This is true whether bringing up children, dealing with colleagues or being married/partnered in life. Why is this suddenly not true in the context of an email discussion? Nobody ever got convinced by a personal attack. . It just entrenches positions and ends rational discussion.
You will note I have described the argument as facile and not the person/people. There is a difference.
Theresa
Well, Oh, lovely! What delicious use of well-mannered irony!

John

Hi, Theresa --

It seems to me that what the author wrote applies very well to much criticism of all supporters of homoeopathy and even to doubters of the True Vaccination Faith. I don't know quite why you have a problem with his assessment of those criticisms; it makes very well the point that the claim of ad hominem arguments so often levelled at those supporters and doubters is not justified and furthermore doesn't justify the conclusion that those supporters' and doubters' conclusions are false or even that their arguments are false. In fact, the misuse of the "ad hominem argument" claim as justifying any such thing is itself a fallacy, and it's to the advantage of those thus attacked to recognise that and to be able to name it.

Cheers!

John
2009/11/1 Theresa Partington >

Pardon me, I meant that it "applies very well to much criticism of all supporters of homoeopathy and even criticism of doubters of the True Vaccination Faith".

Cheers!

John
2009/11/1 John Harvey >

Hello John,
So making a direct personal criticism of someone does not invalidate any criticisms you might have of their argument or actions? Is that what you are sayin? Of course it doesn't - but it does affect the quality of debate and makes it less likely that the disagreement will have a productive outcome. If that is not what you are saying, then I give up! No reflection on you but I have been out in the rain picking weird mushrooms and my brain is tired..In half an hour I will probably be able to understand the universe and all it contains let alone one email.
Theresa
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, John Harvey wrote:

Thanks Theresa. John easily proves your point again. This is a discussion that I am going to make a point of ignoring.
Blessings,
Ellen
y.com

Hi, Theresa --

I think that the broad point of the piece quoted is summed up in the quote itself, but the entire piece is worth reading. (I wrote another e-mail on this topic 22 hours ago in direct reply to Sheri under "ad hominem more", listing some of the other logical fallacies usually committed by these same critics of homoeopathy in the same breath as they accuse its supporters of making ad hominem arguments. I gave a link at the end of that to the piece that the quote is from.)

The broad point he's making is, I'd say, that it's simply not enough for a critic to cry "ad hominem!" even if it's true -- and that commonly it's not true anyway. If you read it with that in mind, I think you'll find that you can make sense of it. I think that the quote expresses wonderfully well the irony of the delicacy of these savage critics in being unable to reply with anything substantial to the arguments that do matter. Yes, you're right, of course: attacking the opponent's credibility does not attack the argument, so an ad hominem argument (which is exactly that: attacking the opponent's credibility) essentially contributes nothing at all. And that is the first point that the quote makes, and that the entire article makes very well: that to cry "ad hominem!" and on that basis to assume that the argument of the opponent has been addressed is itself fallacious.

The other point that the quote makes, and that the article as a whole discusses beautifully (no credit to me, Ellen, but thanks anyway), is that in many cases, what these "delicate" souls resort to calling an ad hominem argument (which is an attempt to discredit an argument by discrediting the person making it) is merely a tone, perhaps the injection of some (possible warrented!) sarcasm; and that the mere fact of taking that tone does not invalidate one's arguments, let alone show that one's conclusions are wrong.

Does that cut through it any better?

I enjoyed your reference to the mushrooms -- very funny!

Cheers --

John
2009/11/2 Theresa >

Oh, I'm a little bewildered now! Who's been making ad hominem (correctly or incorrectly defined) attacks against homeopathy? I think we've seen here, often enough, that it's a rather human (by which I mean not uncommon) instinct to assume similar traits between "message" and "messenger"--person X doesn't agree with this deeply held conviction of mine, therefore she/he must be a terrible or stupid person"--i.e., I don't like what the person is saying, so I assume I don't like them either, or something like that?

But did I miss something, was someone "ad hominiously" attacking homeopathy (mm, could we write a play by that name?), or are we just taking a trek through the glorious depths and heights of the use and misuse of the term, or ? (John, did you ever teach, by any chance?)

:-/
Shannon

Sorry, Shannon, the confusion is my fault; this reference of mine to critics of homoeopathy slipped through from the discussion of such critics in the other post (under "ad hominem more". I particularly enjoyed the quote Sheri supplied because it is so applicable to much of the sniping at homoeopathy -- and its supporters -- that I've seen on so-called skeptics' blogs expressing their True Belief in the Doctrine of No Evidence. The entire piece and the resources I included links to in the other post) make great resources for anyone interested in articulately countering self-satisfied True Believer criticisms of homoeopathy supporters and their efforts.

Cheers!

John
2009/11/3 Shannon & Bob Nelson >