ad hominem argument (argument against the person) the informal fallacy of supposing that a proposition should be denied because of some disqualifying features of the person who affirms it. This fallacy is the mirror image of the appeal to authority. In its abusive form, ad hominem is a direct (and often inflammatory) attack on the appearance, character, or personality of the individual. Example: "Jeremy claims that Susan was at the party, but since Jeremy is the kind of person who has to ride to work on the city bus, it must be false that she was there." A circumstantial ad hominem accuses the person of having an alternative motive for defending the proposition or points out its inconsistency with the person's other views. Tu quoque (the "so do you" fallacy) uses a similar method in response to criticism of a position already held. Recommended Reading: Douglas Walton, Ad Hominem Arguments (Alabama, 1998). [A Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names] Source: FOLDOP
Thanks Earlier I was pondering the mind-body problem. I was reading Schopenhauer - I think that might have had something to do with it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
dookie doo johnny said billy smells like dookie. but johnny smells like dookie, does that mean billy must not smell like dookie? Or does billy smell worse than dookie?
If they both smell like dookie then they both need a shower. As I see it, that is a hygiene issue not a philosophical one. In my opinion, fallacy is another term that is worth pondering. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
ad hominem the appeal to authority is also termed ad hominem, isn't it? e.g. Lyell says that the earth's crust is static. Lyell is a geologist. Therefore the earth's crust is static.
reply to evil so, are all informal fallacies fallacies of relevance? never thought I'd say fallacies twice consecutively in the same sentence and be grammatically correct.
Reply from evil to paulsamuel I am still learning about fallacies (and philosophy in general) so I am no expert. I also want to add, I prefer to use references that I have here at home. I do not currently have a philosophy dictionary so until I get one I am using a couple that I found online. Please don't take that the wrong way - I'm not saying online references are bad, I am just super picky about references. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That said and to answer your question - not all informal fallacies are fallacies of relevance. This definition explains it far better then I ever could: informal fallacy an attempt to persuade that obviously fails to demonstrate the truth of its conclusion, deriving its only plausibility from a misuse of ordinary language. The informal fallacies include: (1) fallacies of relevance: appeal to ignorance, appeal to authority, ad hominem argument, and appeal to emotion, appeal to force, irrelevant conclusion, and appeal to pity; (2) fallacies of presumption: accident, converse accident, false cause, begging the question, and complex question; (3) fallacies of ambiguity: equivocation, amphiboly, accent, composition, and division. Source: FOLDOP If you are interested - here is another link with lots of info on fallacies: Logic and Philosophy of Logic
