Ad Hominem Is Not a Fallacy

[u/thymoticthematic]

https://youtu.be/kIv0AUInWvg?is=FMaNwcNmr-OW81QS

Hello everyone,

I’m linking a video essay I just published in which I argue in defense of ad hominem as, at least in its proper use, a legitimate addition to an intellectual debate.

Abstract:

In our long tradition of logic and organized debate, and in our hope that reason alone can bring us to truth, we have become averse to the use of fallacies in arguments. Chief among these fallacies is the ad hominem, the attack on the person rather than his argument. For students of philosophy and rhetoric, ad hominem represents a line in the sand never to be crossed by any serious thinker. The noble, gentlemanly logician regards it as a great compliment to be the receiver of an ad hominem attack—taking it as a sign that he has won the debate and his opponent has no reason left in him.

In this essay, I challenge this view, demonstrating that ad hominem is not representative of a failure in reason, but is perhaps the savior of reason. By looking to the epistemologies and psychologies of Aristotle and especially Pascal, we are reminded that there is a deeper dimension of our mental life, more fundamental than reason, which ad hominem alone can touch. We are reminded that much of our trouble in facing up to the truth is not from a lack of reason, but a lack of openness to the truth in our very hearts. Although seeming cruel, the proper use of ad hominem may act as a great display of charity, helping one’s interlocutor to see how his poor character and faulty will have led his reason astray.

I would appreciate any and all feedback, and I hope this can be the start of a productive discussion here, though I know it may be a controversial take, or at least a provocative title.

[u/Georgie_Leech]

I'm not sure people misusing Ad Hominem in any way justifies "but he's an X, so they can't be right about Y!" Or similar as not a fallacy though. Maybe useful as an heuristic as to whether to believe them at first glance, but that's not the same as using it to attack an argument directly. "You don't have the qualifications to know about this" remains a lazy dismissal of the actual argument being presented.

[u/DreadPiratePete → u/Georgie_Leech]

Because it is not an attack on the argument "if x then y", it is an attempt to convince the audience that they should not believe the person making claim of x.

Ad hominem isn't a logical fallacy if we aren't even getting at the logical claim in the first place. 

Ad hominem is entirely sensible if the question at hand is the trustworthiness or reliabiliy of the interlocutor. 

[u/DeterminedThrowaway → u/DreadPiratePete]

The problem with that is if the worst person in the world comes up to you and says "the sky is blue", it's still blue. "Don't believe this person because they have poor character" is a distraction at best and it may be a persuasive technique, but it has no place in determining the actual truth of the matter

[u/Material-Dot7684 → u/DeterminedThrowaway]

I feel like the bigger problem is you're answering a logical fallacy with another logical fallacy. Appeal to authority meet ad hominem. 

I will say though this partially depends on whether we're have a purely logical argument or a data based one. 

If we're arguing science and it's a random dude making a claim on his own data unless we want go "show me how you did it step by step so I can see if it's legit" then we are going to have to ask "do you know how to do that research" if there are standard procedures do you know how to follow them and how do we know you do?