Ad Hominem argument/fallacy

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."

Reason: Books I & II

This book is based on the first five years of The Dr. Bo Show, where Bo takes a critical thinking-, reason-, and science-based approach to issues that matter with the goal of educating and entertaining. Every chapter in the book explores a different aspect of reason by using a real-world issue or example.

Part one is about how science works even when the public thinks it doesn't. Part two will certainly ruffle some feathers by offering a reason- and science-based perspective on issues where political correctness has gone awry. Part three provides some data-driven advice for your health and well-being. Part four looks at human behavior and how we can better navigate our social worlds. In part five we put on our skeptical goggles and critically examine a few commonly-held beliefs. In the final section, we look at a few ways how we all can make the world a better place.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

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