So I used some insulting language the other day in a comment and got a Time Out. Although I got really angry about it in the moment, after a bit of reflection I realized that my language was over the top, though it was not crude, was not hate speech, did not involve swearing. I did question the other person’s intelligence and reasoning abilities rather sarcastically, however.
It occurred to me that most, if not all, of the defenses that were leaping to my mind really constituted little more than logical fallacies like “whataboutism.” Also known as the “tu quoque” fallacy, whataboutism is an attempt to deflect attention away from oneself and on to another.
In my case, I was saying (to myself) “what about the time three weeks ago when a user said in a comment ‘you are full of shit’ and I complained and nothing came of it, no T.O., no apology, no nothing.’"
The problem with that reasoning, of course, is that as justified as my anger over the earlier incident was/is, these are separate incidents and someone else’s unpunished guilt does nothing relative to what I did (“Two wrongs don’t make a right.”) I have to accept responsibility for my actions; others’ actions are on them.
And then it occurred to me: a series of posts on logical fallacies would be very useful and could even help prevent unnecessary conflict. I do not think there is a user here who has not become frustrated when people make fallacious arguments and we find ourselves unable in the moment to identify the specific fallacy involved and the relevant counter-argument.
So, as a constructive amends to the community, I offer this guide to argumentative fallacies in the hope that it will prove useful in reducing their use (including by me) and, hopefully, increasing civility here. I am basing this guide on several easily available sources:
1) The entries in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Informal Logic and on Fallacies.
2) The entry on “Fallacies” in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is not available online, but is held by numerous public libraries across the country. The citation: Paul Edwards, ed., The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 8 vols (NY: MacMillan, 1967) III: 169-179.
3) An e-book, “76 Fallacies,” by philosopher Dr. Michael C. LaBossiere, who teaches philosophy at Florida A & M University, an HBCU in Tallahassee, Florida.
4) A law review article by Kevin W. Saunders, a law professor at Michigan State University in East Lansing, MI, entitled “Informal Fallacies in Legal Argumentation,” 44 S.C. L. Rev. 343 (1992-1993).
Fallacy No. 1: The Ad Hominem Fallacy
Defining the ad hominem fallacy
This fallacy is very popular at DK. The Latin phrase means “to the person,” so this is literally an argument directed to the person rather than to the facts or reasoning. Let’s review a few definitions to get the lay of the land.
Stanford: “The ad hominem fallacy involves bringing negative aspects of an arguer, or their situation, to bear on the view they are advancing.”
Saunders: “Rather than attacking the reasoning of the opponent's argument, the ad hominem attacks the person offering the argument. Instead of addressing the issue presented by an opponent, the ad hominem makes the opponent the issue.”
76 Fallacies: “An ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.”
DKos Rule 3: “Don’t insult the character, intelligence, or background of people with whom you are arguing. You want to win an argument? Then don’t engage in ad hominem attacks.”
Consensus: “An ad hominem is an argument or criticism that is focused on the arguer rather than the argument.”
Why ad hominem arguments are fallacious
Arguments ad hominem are fallacious because assertions about a speaker demonstrate nothing about the validity or invalidity of the speaker's argument or conclusions. Just as a broken clock will tell the right time twice a day, so too even persons of awful character or dubious circumstances sometimes offer true facts, valid arguments, and reasoned conclusions.
Further, at a place like DKos, where members discuss issues with one another frequently over time, a sense of camaraderie and community are essential to foster civility and comity. Arguments ad hominem are terribly effective at fanning conflict, disunity, and personal animosity; when such arguments become commonplace, it undermines and ultimately destroys any sense of community. That is why the Rules of the Road have no fewer than 10 rules (1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 15, 17, & 19) that attempt to combat ad hominem type attacks in a variety of ways.
Three types of ad hominem arguments
There are three generally recognized types of ad hominem arguments.
1) Abusive ad hominem: This fallacy involves saying that someone’s opinion should be rejected because they have some unfavorable property or characteristic.
2) Circumstantial ad hominem: This fallacy occurs when someone argues that a speaker’s view should be rejected because it coincides with the speaker's economic or other interests, which have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the arguments made. Note that this would not apply to fact-based criticisms of a third party source, like an industry study showing no global warming.
3) Tu quoque ad hominem: Literally meaning “you too,” this fallacy involves rejecting a view because the speaker does not him- or herself follow it. Essentially a claim of hypocrisy, this is different from a non-fallacious critique of argumentative inconsistency, where two statements made by the same speaker are compared and contrasted.
As LaBossiere says, the ad hominem fallacy involves a two-step diversion:
1. Person A alleges that Person B (a diarist or commenter) has a really bad characteristic or circumstance because he/she is a: felon/ communist/ former Republican/ purist/ conservative/ stockholder in the company we’re discussing/ just trying to start a pie fight/ any others.
2. Person A argues, “Because Person B has this characteristic or circumstance, their argument is wrong and should be rejected.”
This is, by far, the most common fallacy deployed at DKos.
Attacking a speaker’s motivations is ad hominem
Questioning or attacking the motivations of a diarist or commenter is probably the single most common ad hominem fallacy deployed at DKos. These attacks come from right, left, and center, and are especially destructive of comity and community, since they necessarily involve a personal attack on the good faith of the speaker.
Saunders relates an example from a Supreme Court case:
Courts have recognized the fallacy behind an ad hominem in a variety of circumstances. In Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC, Justice O'Connor noted the dissent's claim that the majority had "'misrea[d]' the Court of Appeals' decision, 'transform[ing] a narrow Court of Appeals ruling into a broad one, just so [we could] reverse and install a broad new rule of [our] own choosing,' rather than attempt, as best we are able, to decide the particular case actually before us." Believing that the Court's framing of the issue was correct and fair, Justice O'Connor "decline[d] the opportunity to address further this ad hominem argument."
So in Ford, the dissent argued that the majority decision was motivated by a desire to strike down the old rule and institute a new one, even though the old one did not need to be eliminated. As Saunders points out, contending that the majority misread the decision is definitely not ad hominem; but
the claim that the misreading was the result of an improper (or even legitimate) motive--the desire to establish a broad new rule--is an ad hominem. Rather than merely arguing that the majority's view is incorrect, the dissent strongly suggested that the majority had a motive to transform the lower court ruling.
The dissent’s argument became ad hominem exactly at the moment when it turned from a critique of the majority’s reasoning (“they misread the lower court opinion”) to a critique of the majority’s motives (“just because they wanted to”). Those motives are not on the page where the majority explained its reasoning. They are thus not a part of the argument being made.
And there is such arrogance behind such assertions. To argue that someone’s motivations are improper is to claim that one can read the minds of others—it is sheer speculation that cannot be proven. It is thus almost guaranteed to divert a discussion from the substance of the arguments being made to a discussion of the person making them—the very essence of the ad hominem fallacy. That can lead only to further ad hominems, personal conflict, disunity, etc.
It also constitutes an allegation of “bad faith,” i.e., that the speaker is trying to trick or dupe his or her listeners. If you think about it, that’s a very serious charge at a place like this, since it relates to the whole purpose of the site.
And yet we see questions of motivation all the time at this site, and no persons or groups or tendencies have a monopoly on these ad hominem attacks. Just yesterday, for example, I chided a commenter for this ad hominem:
“They [the diarist] didn’t misunderstand. It’s a deliberate misrepresentation to stoke a pie fight.”
To which I replied:
”You really have no basis to make that assertion other than pure speculation. You are attacking the diarist’s motivations with zero evidence or argument. That makes it an ad hominem attack. Are you sure you want to attack the diarist personally rather than engage the ideas in the diary?”
Although the commenter did not apologize, they did cease and desist, so there was no need to take the issue any further.
A Plea for Substance
It comes down to this: We can have a site where we discuss the substance of politics and the political, or we can have a site where we fling mud at one another by making baseless ad hominem remarks. But we cannot have both, as they are inconsistent and mutually contradictory.
I am asking that we all try to engage the substance of the arguments rather than irrelevant allegations about writers. I say this as someone who went too far himself and wants to help others avoid that while building a solid community.
“The Comity Pledge”
I commit to never writing here in anger. When I feel my emotions rising to a level where I might write something improper, when I am thinking more about the other writer than the issues we are discussing, or am more intent on “getting him or her” than advancing a line of argument, I will walk away until I am sufficiently calm to participate appropriately.