This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Eliminating Ad Hominem when Communicating Ideas
An ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or unrelated belief of the person supporting it.
So, how does one eliminate this kind of disruptive behavior or situations to occur during an intellectual conversation or trying to communicate ideas in general?
Kris Rosvold
Kris Rosvold
I think the only thing we can do is to keep the discussion open, use what we need and leave the rest. In the first two cases you can't change anyones' mind about anything unless they are willing to consider alternatives. The third case is a null value (not statistically useful)
So in sum: Take what you need, contribute what you can, leave the rest.
Jeff Cable
... "Those who most often practice ad hominem arguments are 1) Republican"
Your summation is a useful starting point.
Changing another person's viewpoint is always going to be a challenge. Argument over the internet is frequently futile because you don't see the person you are engaging with, you cannot hear their voice, intonation and inflection and misunderstandings are rife.
'Conversation' via computer network can be useful (I am a member of several internet groups which are closed to those outside of my working life and they work very well) but I don't expect much from open forum debate because we all start from very different places. It is frustrating, where you may have any rudimentary knowledge of logical debate, to engage with sincere people who hold a point of view which excludes large swathes of people and stifles open debate.
edward long 100+
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
Henry Woeltjen 10+
edward long 100+
Henry Woeltjen 10+
Gabo Moreno 100+
Ad hominems can be done by mistake. Most people are not trained in logic and in distinguishing logical fallacies. Often, training in rhetorics includes the use of all kinds of logical fallacies with no explanation about how those things are, well, fallacies.
I know all these are not really the issue in this debate. But I point out these mistakes because I do not think that the use of a logical fallacy is necessarily anti-social behaviour. They might come naturally out of the above-mentioned lack of training in logic. Of course, when done on purpose they are attempts at deviating the attention from the real problem, but, well, I first point out fallacies. If the behaviour continues then I assume either stupidity of plain dishonesty. Whatever the fallacy it might be. If so, then the best course of action is to stop the exchange. Why continue of the other party is dishonest or will not understand?
Fritzie Reisner 100+
The request for explanation may yield an illuminating reply.
I can imagine two different situations, which might unfold differently. Case 1: Someone asserts that Joe's position on an issue is suspect because, say, his name has one syllable, or he likes chocolate, or he doesn't like to travel by boat. In these cases, these features should, as a matter of logic, be unrelated to beliefs Joe holds about most serious subjects. Case 2: Someone asserts Joe's position is suspect because he is on the record for a position or behavior that affects his credibility. For example, if Joe asserts something in a courtroom and the opposing attorney can demonstrate he lied under oath about a different matter last year, that evidence could logically affect Joe's credibility in the new case.