|
|
Is this Circumstantial Ad Hominem?Some time ago I wrote on a forum the following:
There can be no logical, reasonable and/or rational debate in politics if the majority of either party is persistently just trying to convince the other/s to agree to their own view stemming from deeply ingrained biases instead of actually trying to reach a reasonably suitable conclusion that each party can reasonably agree to. However, after some reflection I began to think perhaps I made the Circumstantial Ad Hominem fallacy here. I do remember thinking things at the time like "How can either party be correct if each one is biased." However, I later thought "actually, just because someone might be biased does not necessarily affect the argument/s presented." |
| asked on Sunday, Apr 28, 2019 02:47:32 PM by Jack | |
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."
This book is a crash course, meant to catapult you into a world where you start to see things how they really are, not how you think they are. The focus of this book is on logical fallacies, which loosely defined, are simply errors in reasoning. With the reading of each page, you can make significant improvements in the way you reason and make decisions.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
You nailed it. Biases don't necessarily affect the truth of the argument, like in the case that bias causes the person to argue their position more passionate. To simplify this idea, let's say that is true that X exists. If one is biased to believe that X exists, they may rationalize and offer poor reasons for X existing, but their conclusion would be right, regardless of their biases. |
| answered on Sunday, Apr 28, 2019 03:09:54 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
|
|
There can be no logical, reasonable and/or rational debate in politics if the majority of either party is persistently just trying to convince the other/s to agree to their own view stemming from deeply ingrained biases No, I don't think there is a fallacy commited there, mainly because you did not judge the validity of the arguments made by the political parties based on the fact that they're biased. You simply made the claim that it is very difficult to see reasonable debate in a climate where the majority of both parties have deeply ingrained biases, which is a reasonable claim. (Technically, you didn't say it is very difficult to have reasonable debate, but that there "can be no" reasonable debate, but I think that was a figure of speech that is not to be taken in the absolute, literal way that you phrased it in and you just meant it is extremely rare/difficult to see logical debate in a very biased climate). However, when your reasoning went through the line: How can either party be correct if each one is biased? This is where your reasoning was fallacious because you used the bias of the arguer as an arbiter of the truth of the argument. |
| answered on Sunday, Apr 28, 2019 03:12:27 PM by Abdulazeez |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
Dr. Bennett and Mr. Alabbasi both make the correct point.
Your concern is more a matter of dialectic than of logic. In other words, the purpose of making arguments is to determine truth. That process only works if both sides are willing to give in to a better argument. Political ideologues use argument and logic as weapons, not as methods to seek truth. (Dialectic is a process of give and take between two sides.) Paul Krugman makes a similar point when he complains about "bothsidesism." If one side is quite wrong, it is a dialectical mistake to look for equal problems on both sides. |
| answered on Monday, Apr 29, 2019 09:39:26 AM by Bill |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
Thank you all for the informative responses.
|
| answered on Wednesday, May 01, 2019 05:41:07 PM by Jack |
Comments |
|
| |