At 07:53 PM 10/30/2009, you wrote:
------------------------------------------
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
ad hominem more
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: ad hominem more
The conclusion that these same sad champions of the ad hominem criticism wish their readers to draw is, of course, that because their opponents have (ostensibly) used ad hominem, their conclusions are false.
Yet these same sad champions -- at least in speaking on topics such as homoeopathy or anything else threatening their comfortable views -- usually admit also, and in almost the same breath, that their comfort and certainty derive from either:
• their own assertion that most people share their beliefs (the bandwagon effect and even, often, the false-consensus effect);
• their own assertion that there can be no evidence to oppose those beliefs, since their beliefs disallow the possibility of it (committing the fallacy of their premises' assumption of their conclusions' truth, known as begging the question);
• their own assertion that any opposing beliefs are shared only by those unqualified to argue for them (a genuine ad hominem argument) and/or that their beliefs are supported by qualified people (an appeal to authority, which is itself an inverse ad hominem);
• their own assertion that their comfortable beliefs are shared by some or many (or even all), unnamed, authorities (constituting, all in one claim, reliance on the ad hominem argument; upon an appeal to authority; and upon vagueness, the fallacy of arguing from a proposition too vague for its truth to be testable); or
• their own assertion that the truth of their assertion is evident by their mere assertion of it (the bare-assertion fallacy).
To cap this off, such arguments, stating that because an argument is fallacious its conclusions must be false, themselves commit a fallacy of the most obvious kind: the argument from fallacy, or the fallacy fallacy.
What all of this fallacious reasoning derives from, though, is an attitude that embodies refusal to look at more than one side of the evidence: one-sidedness. Often this is explicit, as in the one-sided argument that the evidence opposing their beliefs is not worth considering, because it cannot exist -- often also called sticking one's head in the sand, or elsewhere. As Gary N. Curtis states concerning one-sidedness in (putatively) scholarly discussion (:
"Scholars are expected to examine all of the evidence and come to a conclusion. Thus, a one-sided lack of objectivity is a cardinal scholarly sin. This is why scholars should listen to others in their field even when--in fact, especially when--they disagree. It is only when scholars have heard and weighed all of the evidence, and considered all of the arguments, that they can come to an objective conclusion."
These and many other identifications of argumentative fallacies make a delightful resource for putting your finger on what exactly is wrong with the arguments mounted against anything that disturbs comfortable, settled beliefs of fact. Many of them are listed and explained nicely in such places as:
and
(overviews);
and
(brief explanations of many fallacies and cognitive biases, with links to explanations that are more comprehensive); and
,
which nicely explains the difference between a logical fallacy and an informal fallacy such as ad hominem is sometimes classified as.
Incidentally, the full discussion of what is and what is not ad hominem from which the original quote was taken from is amusing and very informative and may be found at .
Cheers --
John
2009/11/1 Sheri Nakken >
Yet these same sad champions -- at least in speaking on topics such as homoeopathy or anything else threatening their comfortable views -- usually admit also, and in almost the same breath, that their comfort and certainty derive from either:
• their own assertion that most people share their beliefs (the bandwagon effect and even, often, the false-consensus effect);
• their own assertion that there can be no evidence to oppose those beliefs, since their beliefs disallow the possibility of it (committing the fallacy of their premises' assumption of their conclusions' truth, known as begging the question);
• their own assertion that any opposing beliefs are shared only by those unqualified to argue for them (a genuine ad hominem argument) and/or that their beliefs are supported by qualified people (an appeal to authority, which is itself an inverse ad hominem);
• their own assertion that their comfortable beliefs are shared by some or many (or even all), unnamed, authorities (constituting, all in one claim, reliance on the ad hominem argument; upon an appeal to authority; and upon vagueness, the fallacy of arguing from a proposition too vague for its truth to be testable); or
• their own assertion that the truth of their assertion is evident by their mere assertion of it (the bare-assertion fallacy).
To cap this off, such arguments, stating that because an argument is fallacious its conclusions must be false, themselves commit a fallacy of the most obvious kind: the argument from fallacy, or the fallacy fallacy.
What all of this fallacious reasoning derives from, though, is an attitude that embodies refusal to look at more than one side of the evidence: one-sidedness. Often this is explicit, as in the one-sided argument that the evidence opposing their beliefs is not worth considering, because it cannot exist -- often also called sticking one's head in the sand, or elsewhere. As Gary N. Curtis states concerning one-sidedness in (putatively) scholarly discussion (:
"Scholars are expected to examine all of the evidence and come to a conclusion. Thus, a one-sided lack of objectivity is a cardinal scholarly sin. This is why scholars should listen to others in their field even when--in fact, especially when--they disagree. It is only when scholars have heard and weighed all of the evidence, and considered all of the arguments, that they can come to an objective conclusion."
These and many other identifications of argumentative fallacies make a delightful resource for putting your finger on what exactly is wrong with the arguments mounted against anything that disturbs comfortable, settled beliefs of fact. Many of them are listed and explained nicely in such places as:
and
(overviews);
and
(brief explanations of many fallacies and cognitive biases, with links to explanations that are more comprehensive); and
,
which nicely explains the difference between a logical fallacy and an informal fallacy such as ad hominem is sometimes classified as.
Incidentally, the full discussion of what is and what is not ad hominem from which the original quote was taken from is amusing and very informative and may be found at .
Cheers --
John
2009/11/1 Sheri Nakken >