Welcome, welcome, to another edition of Logical Fallacies Bootcamp! This series seeks to explain some common logical fallacies, both formal and informal, that one runs across on the internet and often also in daily life in the “real world!” Hopefully, this series will help folks identify when they see a logical fallacy “in the wild” and also use them to self-examine their own thinking to ensure that they aren’t falling prey to using these fallacies themselves.
Links to previous installments can be found at the bottom of the page, so if you’ve missed any, want to revisit them, or are new to the series and want to go back to previous posts, that’s where you’ll find them.
Today’s installment: Ad Hominem
Ad Hominem translates from Latin to mean “to or against the person.” In brief, it is resorting to irrelevant personal attacks instead of addressing the merits, or lack thereof, that person’s actual position (this fallacy is closely related to the previously discussed “Poisoning the Well” fallacy and indeed many Poisoning the Well fallacies are also Ad Hominems). This is a VERY common fallacy employed on social media and in internet comments sections, but is also in many other places, including, of course, politics (see: “Mudslinging”), and is also a common feature of many political attack ads.
There are a couple of forms this fallacy can appear in. One is just direct personal insults, such as insulting a person’s looks or intellect or something like that.
Some examples:
“You’re an idiot and don’t even know what you’re talking about.”
Pretty straightforward one here I think.
“Pfft. You’re a woman. What would you know about the military?”
In this one, “you’re a woman” is intended as an insult, insultingly implying that women are ignorant and unqualified to know anything about the military. I imagine many a female DKos reader has encountered similar such sexist attacks in their life.
"Now you tell me she looks presidential, folks. I look presidential.”
This one was a comment made by a certain Presidential candidate during the 2016 Presidential campaign against a certain female Presidential candidate. The implication being that Hillary Clinton didn’t “look Presidential.” ‘Nuff said.
The 1800 Presidential campaign between Jefferson and Adams was a particularly brutal one in regards to ad hominem attacks. Here are a couple examples from that particular campaign:
One writer called John Adams a “a fool, a gross hypocrite and an unprincipled oppressor.” Meanwhile, Jefferson was described as “an uncivilized atheist, anti-American, a tool for the godless French.” Journalist James Callendar described Adams as a “repulsive pedant” and “behaved neither like a man nor like a woman but instead possessed a hideous hermaphroditical character."
Now, it should be noted there are some times where an attack on a person isn’t a fallacy and actually has some validity. Pointing out hypocrisy in an argument -- for example, pointing out a married politician’s extramarital dalliances and a past charge of domestic abuse while he touts that he “supports family values.” It’s an attack on the person’s character, but at the same time relates directly to the politician’s contradictory and hypocritical behavior regarding that claimed position. This is known in some circles as a “Circumstantial Exception,” where the closer or more relevant to the argument at hand a person’s behavior or conflict of interest is, the more likely it is a legitimate question or point to be made to bring it into the argument rather than an ad hominem. Of course, for this to be a valid attack, there has to be some evidence or solid reasoning that it’s true. If it’s just a made up attack with no evidence it falls back into the ad hominem fallacy.
Ad hominem arguments can also fall into one of multiple subcategories:
Abusive: Pretty self-explanatory, this is a direct personal attack, rather than addressing the argument.
Circumstantial: Claiming or implying that a person’s personal circumstances is the reason for their position, so therefore that position must be invalid. Examples: “You only want a better child tax credit because you have kids!” or “You only care about whether a woman is appointed to the Supreme Court because you’re a woman!”
Guilt by Association: Attacking a person via their (real or alleged) association with something negative, either present or past.
Tu Quoque (“you too”): Alleging hypocrisy or inconsistency because a person’s past actions are not consistent with their present position. Example: “You claim to believe smoking as bad, but you’ve smoked since you were a teen!” This particular ad hominem fallacy is also sometimes known as Appeal to Hypocrisy. Keep in mind that the “Circumstantial Exception” mentioned earlier might make pointing out a person’s hypocrisy a valid point depending on the circumstances. But, generally speaking, this will usually fall under the fallacy umbrella.
That’s it for now, folks! Tune in next time for the False Dilemma!
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp is an ongoing series. If you’re a latecomer to the series or have missed a past post in the series, or simply want to revisit a past post, here are the posts in the series, so far:
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp: The Strawman
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp: The Slippery Slope
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp: Begging the Question
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp: Poisoning the Well
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp: No True Scotsman!