02-07-2004 18:23									#91
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Formal fallacies commit logical errors, informal fallacies do not commit logical errors, but are bad argumentative techniques.

Saying that we shouldn't believe someone because they are evil or an idiot can make sense in some contexts, but in the context of debate, where the attempt is to get at the truth they are obviously wanting since they give us poor evidence for premises.

So the answer to Albert's question is: Ad hominems are legit in circumstances where we have to make a decision quickly and the only evidence we have is our evidence of a person's credibility or intelligence. In other cases they are lousy argumentative techniques because they don't serve to uncover the evidentiary basis of the beliefs themselves.

Enough?

	02-07-2004 18:31									#92
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Azazel:

quote: You don't need a belief in a supernatural entity to have a logical belief in right and wrong.

bah... if you reject divine revealation, all you are left with are man-made moralities which are necessarily subjective.

	02-07-2004 18:34									#93
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer Azazel: bah... if you reject divine revealation, all you are left with are man-made moralities which are necessarily subjective.

It just hasn't occured to you, all moral views are man-made. And god is a figment of the imagination.

	02-07-2004 18:35									#94
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Ad hominem arguments are rejected because they are fundamentally irrelevant to a debate. A debate is dialogue between two different logical positions. Each logical position is a “combination” if you will, of premises and the logic used to bind them together to form a conclusion. You can represent it mathematically as X+Y=Z, where X and Y are premises, a logical function to add them together, generating the conclusion Z. That is obviously very simple, since in real life you can have premises used for the synthesis of an actual position, a concept if you will, and some far more complex logic going on, as well as elements used to describe the functionality of that argument. However, the same basic structure of premise, logic, conclusion still holds. Think of it as a house of cards, where the topmost apex is a conclusion, and everything below, the cards and the structure is the argument… that’s probably the simplest analogy I can offer.

In order to attack that argument, you must attack either the premises or the logic. For example, faulty assumptions, necessary conditions as opposed to sufficient conditions, and the like. Change or eliminate the premise or logic of an argument, show it to be faulty, flawed etc, then the resultant conclusion will change or collapse. A debate of course can take on a more loaded form where it is used to determine what is best in a given situation, in which case the views are placed in competition, but still the premise, logic, conclusion structure remains. The weaker position is the one which has weaker premises and or logic (in both quality and quantity, dependent upon the conditions of course) compared to the other.

That brings me on to the nature of the debate in the first place. A debate, as a crucible for the logical validity of different views, is not per-se a marketing opportunity in the sense that bright lights, loud noises and semi-naked women are used to convince people of one view or another. Plainly that sucks, but if we are to examine conclusions and arguments, enhance them, analyse logic or come up with new ones, that is the way it must remain. I suppose we could call it constructive criticism, or critical constructivism/structuralism as I’ve heard it described before, as much as I dislike “isms”.

Now if you want to sell your opinion to others, by all means use simplistic techniques, the marketing language, the naked women, the meaningless attacks on other arguments etc, but if you’re argument or debate comes under critical analysis, don’t expect it to bear up.

Ad hominem is fundamentally irrelevant and useless in a debate where it does not affect the actual views being purported. For example, if I’m a dietician weighing 500 pounds that advocates people eating healthily, exercising, what have you, my argument is unaffected by people pointing out my weight and calling me a hypocrite, because one has no bearing upon the other. My credibility is sometimes attacked because I smoke marijuana, and yet, that has absolutely nothing to do with the premises or logic of my arguments! Such an appeal does not concern ones emotional faculties so to speak, it merely shows a limitation of the intellect, and appeal to those of similar limitations – naturally if you understand the argument and have the ability to counter/contribute you won’t resort to ad hominem.

That brings us on to the question of vested interest. If a fascist presents an article whose conclusion is opposed to the gay community, we cannot attack the fascist for doing so immediately since that does not affect the argument. However, if he then adds that we should somehow implement any suggestions in the article, THEN we can question him, for having a vested interest in saying as such, where he provides no reasons for doing so. We can also question its wider significance, as the arguer has a direct relation to the argument. Credibility should also be mentioned, though ideally is not massively important. It is relevant where known details of the arguers past can affect his present argument. Someone who previously argued that 2+2=5 for example would not be taken seriously in a debate about mathematics, simply because he would not be trusted to present assumptions in the argument, though his logic may be sound henceforth, any argument must be based on foundations, otherwise we’d have to reconstruct the entire universe every time we sat down to debate. If of course he can back up his assumptions to a level where they can be communicated to others, his views should be taken as seriously as any others presented. It is a difficult distinction to get around at first but it is a clear one.

This is not to say that a debate is a matter of total pure logic, no linguistic flourishes or humour, of course it is not. One can joke about other people, limited by the etiquette of the particular setting one should suppose, but such jokes are regarded as amusing, and do not affect arguments or credibility. Debates require discipline, they require thought and they require practise to get good at them – sometimes they are not easy. It is tempting sometimes to attack another person out of frustration at their superior view, ones own inability to question it, a personal quarrel with another arguer or isolation in a debate where most other people concur with the opposition in which case the emotional reaction is to attempt to bring other people onside tooth and nail. Use of those tactics will earn disrespect and derision at your ability to rationally analyse views, since such displays demonstrate that you cannot critically analyse, which is the very nature of the debate.

	02-07-2004 18:36									#95
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Agathon:

Bob has some plan to change the education system in a predominately spanish area. Bob is a racist and his education plan is an arguement derived from his racism. would it be improper to bypass the education plan and simply attack Bob for his racism?

thats the crux of my arguement. reasoned arguements are just justifications for predispossed emotional instincts. It would seem silly to combat arguements and not attack the man from which the arguements developed.

	02-07-2004 18:38									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Giancarlo:

quote: It just hasn't occured to you, all moral views are man-made. And god is a figment of the imagination.

exactly... and just as Christian morality can be dismissed as not being a universal truth, Azazel's morality can not be absolute. both are subjective philosophies.

	02-07-2004 18:43									#97
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Albert: no.

In some cases (those where we have no other evidence or prospect of getting any) discounting someone's opinion on the basis of their character or perceived intelligence is justifiable.

Say for example that some well known idiot tries to convince you that George Bush is really an alien, but you don't have time to go through all his reasons. In this case we all would discount the opinion based on the credibility of the source.

On the other hand, if you were debating this person, calling him an idiot wouldn't be as good a refutation as if you showed his premises to be false or his reasoning faulty.

Whether or not inferring someone's beliefs are false from their perceived idiocy or immorality is a good idea depends on the context and your aim. In the context of reasonable debate, it is to examine the grounds of someone else's beliefs as a means to refuting him. Calling him an idiot isn't refuting him, even though it may provide you with good reasons not to believe him.

	02-07-2004 18:44									#98
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Whaleboy:

quote: A debate is dialogue between two different logical positions.

I disagree with you right there in your second sentence. A debate is not a dialogue between two different logical positions but between the two positions as well as everything that created them.

a logical position is not self-sufficient. The basic level of being is the level of instincts. Human beings, too, are firstly motivated on this basic level of instincts. It is only with the development of language that humans decided to attempt to rationalize their instincts. They developed reason to justify their instinctual motivations.

you have the situation that i compared to Hiedegger's origin of art where the created is the creator's interpretation of the motivating factor.

therefore, with one's logical position being but an extenstion of himself and his emotional motivations, it makes no sense to simply battle logical positions. The motivations that these logical positions justify must also do battle.

	02-07-2004 18:47									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: me criticizing picasso for being a bad painter is an ad hominem that is hard to have a problem with.

That isn't an ad hominem. What is, is saying Picasso was a womanizer so his paintings are crap. Him womanizing has nothing to do with his painting.

	02-07-2004 19:07									#100
	Increase Your PM Length

For those (like me) who do not know what an ad hominem is, some definition:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Ad_hominem

	02-07-2004 19:19									#101
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer would it be improper to bypass the education plan and simply attack Bob for his racism?

It would be pointless in the context of the debate, because the debate isn't about Bob's racist views, it's about his proposal.

What if, in spite of Bob's racism and racist motivations, the plan actually had a lot of logical merit to it? If you dismiss his argument simply because you know he's a racist, you're potentially losing what could be a valuable proposal. His being a racist may have a lot to do with why he advocates a plan, but it has nothing to do with the merit of the plan itself.

	02-07-2004 19:24									#102
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer A debate is not a dialogue between two different logical positions but between the two positions as well as everything that created them.

This is not normally true, particularly when discussing public policy and such. Delving into such matters is irrelevant to such debates. Consider that two competing positions in, say, government policy are argued about for the purpose of establishing which policy would best serve the country. The character or background of the people arguing the positions is utterly irrelevant to whether or not their proposals are valid policy choices.

Ad hominems are, simply put, tactics used to confuse and muddle a debate or score cheap points. Using them is a sign of a weak position in an argument.

	02-07-2004 19:26									#103
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

But they embody chains of reasoning that we use all the time, and in different contexts they are entirely appropriate.

	02-07-2004 19:28									#104
	Re: Ad hominems, etc. should be legit Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer I never understood why ad hominems, emotional appeals, etc. are not considered legitimate debate techniques. For what reason are they not?

Surely a man as smart as you will understand it through the link below (*)

appeal to fear http://www.propagandacritic.com/art...ct.sa.fear.html

(*) appeal to flattery

	02-07-2004 19:30									#105
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Consider that two competing positions in, say, government policy are argued about for the purpose of establishing which policy would best serve the country.

How charmingly naive. This is democracy: so we know that debates are really about which policy would serve the representative's supporters and financial backers.

	02-07-2004 19:36									#106
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

but Boris, the candidates' public policy stances are extensions of their emotional pre-dispositions... why aren't the pre-dispositions up for debate? One candidate wants to institute faith-based schooling; why can't I attack his faith?

	02-07-2004 19:50									#107
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

As Agathon has said repeatedly - you can, but only if there isn't any other reason you can find to disagree with his stance. And at that point, any attack on his faith will look to an outside like you've lost the debate already. It's a poor debating technique.

	02-07-2004 19:54									#108
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer but Boris, the candidates' public policy stances are extensions of their emotional pre-dispositions... why aren't the pre-dispositions up for debate? One candidate wants to institute faith-based schooling; why can't I attack his faith?

Because it's irrelevant to the public policy. As I said before: The biases of a person has nothing to do with the merits of their position in a debate. It may explain why they advocate that position, but whoop-de-doo. That may be edifying to know, but it doesn't matter when you're concerned with whether or not what they're advocating is logically sound.

	02-07-2004 19:55									#109
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Agathon and in different contexts they are entirely appropriate.

Hence my "not normally true" caveat.

	02-07-2004 20:30									#110
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

@ thread

	02-07-2004 21:12									#111
	Support Apolyton

Ad hominens are very important in the real world, paritularly business, a guy with a great reputation speaking someting somewhat off the wall will usually prevail over a percieved dork dispensing something very sensible.

	02-07-2004 21:36									#112
	Put an end to popups!

I'm ignoring Lefty's point entirely because I perceive him to be a big dork. It's the monocle.

See, that doesn't get the debate very far, AS.

	02-07-2004 22:42									#113
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: I disagree with you right there in your second sentence. A debate is not a dialogue between two different logical positions but between the two positions as well as everything that created them.

Wrong, it is a debate between two different conclusions, so for example you might televise one if you are very bored as "determinism vs. free will" and have a big pool of premises and logic to construct and deconstruct a position. It is not a debate between arguments, since one uses the argument as a means to the conclusion, or a means to the destruction of the other argument. Nonetheless, that question is irrelevant since in both cases, argument and conclusion, the predominant factor is logic.

quote: a logical position is not self-sufficient. The basic level of being is the level of instincts. Human beings, too, are firstly motivated on this basic level of instincts. It is only with the development of language that humans decided to attempt to rationalize their instincts. They developed reason to justify their instinctual motivations.

Ah! An emotivist! *Whaleboy licks lips*. Each of us has our own emotional, personal motivations for an argument. I might be a pacifist because I have an irrational hatred of war because of relatives killed in WWII, or having spoken to someone who suffered in a concentration camp, or whatever. My experience however is not representative of war, but my own reasons for purporting an argument are fundamentally irrelevant to the argument itself. I choose that pacifist view because I like it, why do I like it? Because certain arguments supporting it are stronger. Why do I think they are stronger, or why do I prefer those arguments with those premises and reason? Further premises and conclusions. That's the logical position to be addressed, but many people, even the most intellectual in a debate will choose the conclusion that agrees with their own personal emotive disposition. That is again, irrelevant to the arguments. It's like questioning the means by which a player joins a football team with a view to seeing which team is better. The only way to tell which team is better is to let them play!

quote: you have the situation that i compared to Hiedegger's origin of art where the created is the creator's interpretation of the motivating factor.

Ayer and Stevenson.

quote: therefore, with one's logical position being but an extenstion of himself and his emotional motivations, it makes no sense to simply battle logical positions. The motivations that these logical positions justify must also do battle.

There is a fundamental separation between the two however. We don't use debates as a dick size contest. The emotional motivations are necessarily irrelevant to the argument and conclusion, though the argument and conclusion are not irrelevant to the emotional motivation, we are not psycho-analysing the arguer in a debate - whose function remains to analyse, explore, refute or support a given view. Note that some people will choose an opinion based on its strengths as shown in a debate in the first place, emotive motivations in this case are demonstrated to be far too whimsical even if they did have potential value in a debate, which they don't .

	02-07-2004 22:46									#114
	I've even drawn a pretty picture for y'all Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The house's of cards present two differing arguments with their conclusion at the apex. You and me are choosing our respective positions, using our emotional dispositions, the fuzzy things above our names. You see they only affect us, not the arguments... a debate is about the arguments and the conclusions you see.... so ones emotive disposition is irrelevant.

Attachment: argument.jpg
This has been downloaded 47 time(s).

	02-07-2004 23:00									#115
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer Agathon: Bob has some plan to change the education system in a predominately spanish area. Bob is a racist and his education plan is an arguement derived from his racism. would it be improper to bypass the education plan and simply attack Bob for his racism? thats the crux of my arguement. reasoned arguements are just justifications for predispossed emotional instincts. It would seem silly to combat arguements and not attack the man from which the arguements developed.

seems to me youve snucked something in there.

1. His plan is NOT an argument, its a plan which may be based on an arguement.
2. If the argument for his plan is based on racist assumptions, and without those assumptions the plan ceases to make sense, it would seem rational to point that out. But then its NOT an ad hominem.
3. If Bob is going to be the one IMPLEMENTING the plan, it would seem to be relevant, since in that case we're not arguing concepts but personnel
4. If Bob is arguing as an expert authority (ive looked at a hundred studies, trust me) then of course its relevant

	02-07-2004 23:03									#116
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Spear:

In another thread, you demoaned the fact that you had trouble with the ladies.

Is this how you interact in all your human contact situations? Seriously, you must be on a perma-troll when posting at Apolyton. I can't possible believe you are being yourself online.

P.S. Great picture Whaleboy.

	02-07-2004 23:09									#117
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola Ad hominens are very important in the real world, paritularly business, a guy with a great reputation speaking someting somewhat off the wall will usually prevail over a percieved dork dispensing something very sensible.

see it depends on context. In making a real world decision, in business, as a consumer, as a voter, i often have to make decisions about something where I dont have the expertise or the resources to evaluate all the arguements - I may rely in whole or in part on authority, on the testimony of experts who know more than I do. I dont have the option of avoiding the decision, or if I do, that is itself a decision with consequences.

On forums for debate like this one, however, theres really no reason for that. I can simply avoid a debate with no particular consequences, and just leave it to those who know more. If no one here has such knowledge, or only one side, then its probably not a topic thats worth discussing here.

Example - Oerdin says, for the sake of argument, that 60% of the Iraqis in town X are pro-US. Theres no way for me to check that. But theres NOTHING I need to do about that particular fact, and theres NO point for me to discuss Oerdins personal reliability in order to support or challenge the point. If i was Oerdins commanding officer it would be something different.

	02-07-2004 23:25									#118
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Ad hominems are legit in circumstances where we have to make a decision quickly and the only evidence we have is our evidence of a person's credibility or intelligence.

The problem is just that people too often think it's "evidence of a person's (low) credibility or intelligence" when they simply do not like the arguments of the other side.....of course this never happens on Poly

	02-07-2004 23:45									#119
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I had an "amusing" argument about ad hominems yesterday. Two people at another forum were insulting each others' intelligence, and one said the other's spelling was awful. The response was, "If you have to resort to attacking my spelling that just shows how bad your argument is". I would contend that when you're discussing how dumb someone is, the fact that they can't grasp that "should of" is not a valid term, is valid.

	02-07-2004 23:50									#120
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by BeBro The problem is just that people too often think it's "evidence of a person's (low) credibility or intelligence" when they simply do not like the arguments of the other side.....of course this never happens on Poly

well youre wrong. Youre wrong cause youre an idiot. YOure an idiot cause you would argue something this wrong. Right? [sarcasm mode off}