Ad hominem fallacy (or ad hominem) is an attempt to discredit someone’s argument by personally attacking them. Instead of discussing the argument itself, criticism is directed toward the opponent’s character, which is irrelevant to the discussion.

Ad hominem fallacy example

Person 1: I think it is important to enforce minimum-wage legislation so that workers are not exploited.

Person 2: Nonsense. You only say that because you just can’t get a good job!

Ad hominem fallacy is often used as a diversion tactic to shift attention to an unrelated point like a person’s character or motives and avoid addressing the actual issue. It is common in both formal and informal contexts, ranging from political debates to online discussions.

What is the ad hominem fallacy?

Ad hominem fallacy is a group of argumentation strategies that focus on the person making an argument rather than their viewpoint. This involves an attack on any aspect of the opponent’s personality, like their intelligence, reputation, or group affiliations. The attack can be subtle, such as casting doubt on a person’s character, or overt, like insulting someone.

The ad hominem fallacy is a logical fallacy, specifically a fallacy of relevance, i.e, the argument raised is irrelevant to the discussion. An ad hominem fallacy appeals to our emotions and prejudices rather than facts.

Ad hominem literally means “to the person” as in being “directed at the person.” An ad hominem argument is therefore an attack directed against the person who makes a statement rather than the validity of their statement. In everyday language, this is known as a personal attack.

The goal of an ad hominem argument or ad hominem attack is to refute an opposing view indirectly, without ever engaging with it. The target of the attack usually feels the need to defend themself and thus digress from the discussion topic, which shows just how powerful ad hominem arguments are.

When is an ad hominem argument valid?

An ad hominem argument is not always fallacious. Because ad hominem arguments have been associated with dirty tricks and name-calling, they are usually considered as hits below the belt that do not advance a healthy debate.

However, an ad hominem argument can sometimes be used as a legitimate rhetorical strategy. When the claims made about a person’s character are relevant to the discussion or the conclusions being drawn, and they are properly justified, the ad hominem argument is valid.

For example, attacks on a person who has cheated on their partner are irrelevant to the quality of their mathematical reasoning, but they are relevant to deciding whether this person should be the leader of an association that emphasizes family values.

Different types of ad hominem arguments

Ad hominem arguments can take various forms. In some cases, they are almost always a fallacy, while in other cases they can be valid depending on how they are used. Here are the most common types of ad hominem arguments:

• Abusive ad hominem is a direct attack on the other person’s character, targeting their age, character, gender identity, appearance, etc. Abusive ad hominem arguments are usually fallacious because the attack is irrelevant to the discussion. For example, “who is going to vote for a person looking like this?” is a fallacy because appearance has nothing to do with one’s leadership abilities.

• Circumstantial ad hominem (or appeal to motive) argues that a person’s circumstances, such as their job, political affiliation, or other vested interests, motivate their argument and thus it must be biased and false. For example, a salesperson may tell you that the pair of jeans you’re trying on looks good on you, and you may half-jokingly point out that of course they think so since they want to make a sale.

• Tu quoque (“you too”) ad hominem is an attempt to refute an argument by attacking its proponent and accusing them of hypocrisy (i.e , pointing to a contradiction between their words and their deeds). For example, a doctor suggests that a patient should lose weight, and the patient dismisses the advice on the grounds that the doctor has a few extra pounds too.

• Guilt by association ad hominem is a variant in which someone is attacked because of their alleged connection with a person or group that has an unfavorable reputation. For example, “Stalin was evil and against religion. All people against religion are evil.”

• Poisoning the well is a type of ad hominem where (irrelevant) negative information is preemptively presented to an audience to discredit whatever the opponent is about to say. For example, “before you listen to her, I should remind you that she has been charged with embezzlement.”

Ad hominem examples

The ad hominem argument or personal attack is very common in public discourse, especially in the run-up to elections.

Ad hominem example in the media

In the 2020 presidential election, both candidates resorted to ad hominem attacks during the presidential debate, their speeches, and on social media.

President Trump claimed Biden is “against God” and on the “wrong side of history,” while Democrats were attacked for viewing America as “a wicked nation that must be punished for its sins.”

On the other side, Joe Biden used a similar approach and claimed “the fact is this man has no idea what he’s talking about,” accusing his opponent of receiving payment from foreign countries.

Regardless of one’s political affiliations, ad hominem attacks are hollow arguments that communicate nothing and play to our emotions, biases, and prejudices. As a result, important issues often don’t get addressed, leading to increased political polarization.

An argument contains an ad hominem fallacy when you make an irrelevant attack on a person and suggest that this attack proves that what the person says cannot be trusted.

Ad hominem example in real life

A professor is presenting their latest research on quantum mechanics to a group of colleagues. At the end of the presentation, a person whispers to the other: “I don’t believe a word. I think it’s all made-up. Do you realize that this person has been cheating and lying to their partner for years?”

In this context, whether the professor cheated on their partner has no bearing on their ability as a researcher. Therefore, the ad hominem argument is fallacious. Had the professor falsified research data in the past, then it would have been fair to bring this up and cast doubt on the professor’s research ethic.

Frequently asked questions about the ad hominem fallacy

Nikolopoulou, K. (2023, October 09). Ad Hominem Fallacy | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/ad-hominem-fallacy/

출처 입력

Lillo-Unglaube, M., Canales-Johnson, A., Navarrete, G., & Bravo, C. (2014). Toward an experimental account of argumentation: the case of the slippery slope and the ad hominem arguments. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01420

출처 입력

​

​

​

논문과 관련하여 도움이 필요한 경우 친절하게 상담하고 있으니 편한 마음으로, 전화, 홈페이지, 카톡, 톡톡 등을 통해 상담을 받아보세요~

​

대표번호 : 02-554-0805

고객센터 : 1899-0805

24시간카톡상담 : brainphd

이메일 : info5044@brainphd.co.kr

​

#Article #Research #Paper #논문컨설팅 #석사논문 #박사논문 #공학논문 #사회복지논문 #건축학논문 #서울대박사 #논문통계 #SPSS #SCI논문 #학위논문 #논문교정 #부산논문 #대전논문 #간호학논문 #경영학논문 #마케팅논문 #음악논문 #미술논문 #교육학논문 #심리학논문 #의학논문

​