|
|
There is no difference between these two fallacies.Just finished the book and it seems that, "bulverism" is exactly the same as an ad hominem, stating that an argument cannot be true because of the character.
A great example of an ad hominem is Saying that someone who doesn't have a uterus cannot have an opinion on abortion.
A great example of bulverism is saying that someone without a uterus cannot have a valid opinion on abortion either.
Even when two of these fallacies are described, ad hominem (abusive) just means to discredit an argument by talking about the character, where as bulverism is said to be the same, a combination of the genetic fallacy (because of the character being the source) and circular reasoning (why they are wrong). In an ad hominem, the genetic fallacy could be shown when the person criticises who is talking by simply trying to argue by saying, "Oh look who is talking, the guy that doesn't even go to school", and circular reasoning where the person using the ad hominem ASSUMES that that must be the reason why are they not correct. So is there any difference whatsoever? |
| asked on Tuesday, Jan 04, 2022 01:09:24 PM by | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.
This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book.
|
|
The ad hominem (abusive) generally is an attack on one's character and bulverism uses the genetic fallacy where the origin of the argument is evaluated rather than the argument itself. So while they can overlap like in your example, they don't have to. For example, if someone dismissed an argument because it came from the Bible, that would be the genetic fallacy, not an ad hominem. |
|||
| answered on Tuesday, Jan 04, 2022 07:25:39 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD | ||||
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
||||
Comments |
||||
| ||||
