Would also call this argument from Fallacy? (argumentum ad logicam)

Following a short clip from a YouTube video with Dr. Richard Dawkins and Dr. Deepak Chopra Richard Dawkins basically calls Deepak Chopra out for a what I say appeal to jargon fallacy by saying something like the following:

Dr. Richard Dawkins:

We have been subjected to a word salad of scientific jargon, completely incomprehensible and inappropriate.

Dr. Deepak Chopra:

{HiLi}Dr. Dawkins I would like to remind you that ad-hominem is a logical fallacy; that is science 101. You should know that.{/HiLi}

It was Dr. Deepak Chopra that I believed made the argument from fallacy. All I see Richard Dawkins doing is just calling him out on "an appeal to jargon." I don't see any ad-hominems detected by Richard Dawkins.

What do you think?

The short clip can be found here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=P. . .

The full debate can be found here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=B. . .

I watched the clip but not the full version. I feel that assumptions can be made, but more context would be helpful before calling fallacy. First, Dawkins does make what appears to be an ad hominem but I don't know if he rejected Chopra's argument on that basis or truly felt what was said was incomprehensible, in which case, Dawkin's implied response was more like "I can't evaluate your argument because I didn't understand it" rather than "you are wrong because I didn't understand what you said."

Chopra's response is similar in that I don't know if he rejected Dawkin's criticism based on the fallacy, or just pointed out that it was a fallacy. For example, did he mean "You committed a fallacy therefore you are wrong" or was he just pointing out the fallacy? In either case, the biggest problem with the argument from fallacy is that it is suggested that the person is wrong because of the fallacy. If Chopra did not state it, it was implied.

It's a really good question.

I found this to be especially enlightening on the subject.

"Non-fallacious reasoning

When a statement is challenged by making an ad hominem attack on its author, it is important to draw a distinction between whether the statement in question was an argument or a statement of fact (testimony). In the latter case the issues of the credibility of the person making the statement may be crucial. So in essence, yes, Ad Hominem is not always invalid just because it's Ad Hominem. If the credibility of the person issuing the statement is of importance to it's conclusion, then Ad Hominem could be entirely valid.

To answer your title question: Have any philosophers argued that ad hominems are sometimes valid? - Yes

Gary N. Curtis, owner of the website: Fallacy Files.org and Philosophy PhD is the source for the Wikipedia quote given above. He states eloquently:

The main thing to keep in mind is the distinction between argumentation and testimony. The whole point of logic is to develop techniques for evaluating the cogency of arguments independently of the arguer's identity. So, ask the question: is the person being criticized arguing or testifying? Are reasons being presented, or must we take the person's word for something? If the person is arguing, the argument should be evaluated on its own merits; if testifying, then credibility is important."

I'm posting this debate between Dr. Michael Shermer and Sam Harris v Deepak Chopra and Jean Houston which I hope you'll enjoy. Chopra goes on a jargonist rant exactly as Dawkins accuses him in your video post. What's clear is Chopra is not arguing but testifying. Dawkins calls Chopra out for his "word salad", Dr. Shermer calls it "woo-woo". Daniel Dennett calls this "theological spin". In all cases the implied ad hominem goes to challenging Dr. Chopra's history of pseudo-scientific claims.

Deepak Chopra destroyed by himself youtu.be/hU6TkfCGlX8 via @YouTube