Question

...

Ad Hominem argument/fallacy

There seems to be a consensus that Ad Hominem argument is not a valid argument, but I cannot see how it would be so.

It seems that calling "attacking the messenger, not the message" a fallacy argues that "all opinions are equal, independent of the source's competence, motive or expertise".

But given that everyone has an opinion, wouldn't judging the competence, motive and expertise of the messenger be a indispensable method in practical day-to-day life?

I won't take medical advice from total stranger seriously, unless he's a doctor. Is that a fallacy?
asked on Wednesday, Nov 26, 2014 07:46:52 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."

Master the "Rules of Reason" for Making and Evaluating Claims

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. 

Take the Online Course

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
1

Hello William,

The Ad Hominem (Abusive) is defined as attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making. In your example, clearly a stranger giving medical advice is justification for doubt—but not necessarily an attack. The ad hominem is also often used as a diversion to avoid the issue, which increases it's fallaciousness.

The credibility of the source is very useful heuristic, but like all heuristics, the shortcut sacrifices a piece of your reason for cognitive ease. If we had the time, energy, and motivation it would be in the best interest of truth to evaluate each claim independently of the source. But that is not how the world works. Paradoxically, the lack of applied reasoning to every case makes us more reasonable. Ignoring the credibility of the source for every claim would result in far more problems than it would solve.

Hope that helps!
answered on Wednesday, Nov 26, 2014 08:29:25 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments