learningtofly said:

Quote:

Ad Hominem: An ad hominem argument can be legitimate in countering an appeal to authority if one can undermine the authority of the person being appealed to.

---

really? I thought an argument always stood on its own merit regardless of who says it. The only time personal attacks are legit is when you question someone's character. And even then, it's not an argument it's a testimony.

---

johnm214 said:

learningtofly said:

Quote:

Ad Hominem: An ad hominem argument can be legitimate in countering an appeal to authority if one can undermine the authority of the person being appealed to.

---

really? I thought an argument always stood on its own merit regardless of who says it. The only time personal attacks are legit is when you question someone's character. And even then, it's not an argument it's a testimony.

---

Bingo.


Likewise with the appeal to authority.  The whole point is that the argument should stand on its own merits.  Chanting someone's opinion is not an argument, it is fallacious, and only appropriate to show what someone thinks, at most.



The original poster's contention that it isn't fallacious to ignore the merits of an argument only to attack the person's qualification  (when that has nothing to do with the merits of the argument at all) is ridiculous.  The whole point is that the logic is what it is, irrespective of the person who penned it.


If we wanted to just take people's naked conclusions as facts then we wouldn't have arguments anyways.

---

Silversoul said:

Ad Hominem: An ad hominem argument can be legitimate in countering an appeal to authority if one can undermine the authority of the person being appealed to.

---

deCypher said:

Silversoul said:

Ad Hominem: An ad hominem argument can be legitimate in countering an appeal to authority if one can undermine the authority of the person being appealed to.

---

An ad hominem argument is never legitimate.  Address the person's argument; the characteristics of the person have absolutely no bearing or relevance to the validity of his or her words.

---

Silversoul said:

deCypher said:

Silversoul said:

Ad Hominem: An ad hominem argument can be legitimate in countering an appea
l to authority if one can undermine the authority of the person being appealed to.

---

An ad hominem argument is never legitimate.  Address the person's argument; the characteristics of the person have absolutely no bearing or relevance to the validity of his or her words.

---

Suppose the person is asking me to take their word for something, and yet they have a history of being a paranoid lunatic.  I would right to point out that they lack credibility.  Would it be an ad hominem if I were to distrust an article because it is written by Alex Jones?  The credibility of the person making the argument can be relevant to the credibility of the argument.

---

trendal said:

It's always possible that Alex Jones could have some wise nuggets of truth; I would read his article and judge it on its own grounds without tarnishing my preconceptions by what I know of the writer.



This is the way I have always tried to approach an argument!

---

I prefer dismissing him out right.    Life is to short to perpetually give people the benefit of the doubt.


I remember in my first formal class on this stuff the last of the logical fallacies in the text was using logical fallacies improperly.  Like SS says, sometimes things really are a slippery slope and sometimes appeal to authority is valid.

Quote:

Qubit said: Like SS says, sometimes things really are a slippery slope and sometimes appeal to authority is valid.

---

deCypher said:

A logical argument does not typically involve taking someone's word for something.  It's always possible that Alex Jones could have some wise nuggets of truth; I would read his article and judge it on its own grounds without tarnishing my preconceptions by what I know of the writer.

This is why most teachers who grade their students' essays don't look at who wrote it until after they've finished grading.

---

deCypher said:

As learningtofly said, that applies to testimony and not logical argumentation.

---

learningtofly said:

First, check to make sure the argument is valid (if not there's no point really in moving on). Whether or not it's true only matters when determining if it's sound/cogent.

---

Silversoul said:

learningtofly said:

First, check to make sure the argument is valid (if not there's no point really in moving on). Whether or not it's true only matters when determining if it's sound/cogent.

---

You can have a valid argument based on facts that are categorically wrong.  \

---