When people think of an argument, often what comes first into their mind is the thought of engaging in a heated exchange that is further characterized with strings of personal attacks. However, an argument could come in the form of making a flawed logical highlight especially when having a conversation with an individual. The logically unsound remarks often result to a potential damage to the bottom line in a debate or a casual conversation. Markedly, the ad hominem fallacy is the most common form of dodgy logic that we come across in our day-to-day interactions, which sets out to disregard logic and damage an individual’s credibility by making claims that fail to follow logic but rather attack on personal basis. For that reason, below is an analysis of the Ad hominem fallacy, which aims on highlighting the fallacy, its effects on decision making, and how to avoid or reduce its adversity.
Ad hominem Fallacy
Standardization and Truth Table
A logical fallacy tends to camouflage itself and sneak up to appeal to the audience’s reasoning. The ad hominem fallacy sets out to mislead individuals with a demonstration that takes a more personal attack. In the quest to counter an argument, an ad hominem fallacy lacks validity while defending an original conclusion (Bustamante & Dahlman, 2015). It takes the form, if ‘a’ happens, then ‘b’ should happen, therefore based on ‘b’;‘a’ was bound to happen. This can be discerned using a truth table.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
An example of a fallacious argument is Tom arguing that, “Lina says that whales should not be categorized as fish. However, Lina is only in third grade. Therefore, she cannot be right.”
In the argument, Tom infers that since Lina is in third grade, she lacks ample knowledge and therefore, cannot know that a whale is not a fish. To determine the whether this is a fallacious argument we would come up with a truth table as follows:
Step 1: p: Lina is in third grade
Q: She does not know that a whale is not a fish
Step 2: p→q If Lina is in third grade, then she does not know that a whale is not a fish
The whale is a fish if Lina is in third grade
Step 3: Write the symbolic statement for the above, [( p → q ) ^ q] → p
Step 4: Truth table for the symbolic statement
|
p q |
p → q |
( p → q ) ^ q |
[( p → q ) ^ q] → p |
|
TT |
T |
T |
T |
|
T F |
F |
F |
T |
|
F T |
T |
T |
F |
|
F F |
T |
F |
T |
Step 5: From the table, it is evident that Tom’s argument is invalid, therefore a fallacy
Detailed Explanation and Analysis of Fallacy
The typical ad hominem fallacy refers to a situation when a member of the listening party attacks an individual who is advancing a particular debate by taking a personal approach and ignoring whatever the individual is actually addressing (Bustamante & Dahlman, 2015). Given its nature, the Ad hominem is a Latin saying, derived from the words, “against the man.” In addition it is also referred to as, “poisoning the well” or, “the personal attack.”In the ad hominem fallacy, individuals opposing the speaker often choose to launch a personal attack rather than advancing a rational argument (Bustamante & Dahlman, 2015). Rather than arguing by providing sound reasoning, ad hominem fallacy eliminates logical debate with a verbal attack that falls far from the truth behind the subject (Bustamante & Dahlman, 2015). More precisely, the ad hominem can be considered as a relevance delusion where an individual discredits and criticizes another person’s perspective based on his or her physical appearance, personal traits, historical background, and other elements that are often irrelevant to the topic of debate.
Factually, individuals can defend against ad hominem attacks especially when they appear fallacious (Bennett, 2017). The fundamental nature of the argumentum ad hominem as an argument can be displayed by determining the nature of argumentation as applied in a dialogue. Revealingly, two types of uses come out clearly, attacking and defending (Bennett, 2017). Attacking is two-fold. Firstly, one can attack the opponent argument externally, which is referred to as ad judicium. This happens when one is able to refer to evidence to challenge the arguments. External attacks can equally seek to show the arguments by the opponent have no basis to support it, especially because it has weak foundation (Bennett, 2017). In addition, opponent’s evidence can be attacked internally, by proving that it is in conflict with prior commitments. In often case, internal attacks are powerful because it portrays the inconsistency in the position taken by the opponent (Bennett, 2017). Internal attack is a proof that the argument is in conflict with itself. Notably, the internal attack is associated with argumentum ad hominem because it seeks to raise doubts regarding inconsistent attacks of commitments, as well as coherent and organized reasoned behind what he advocates at the present.
Ways That the Fallacy Disrupts Argumentation
For that reason, an ad hominem surpasses insult since it is comes as an offense used in the form of an argument where the opposing the party provides misleading evidence to support his own end of debate (Bustamante & Dahlman, 2015). Notably, at times ad hominem fallacy manifests itself in the form of a verbal, circumstantial, guilt by association, and Tu Quoque attack, which is used to prove either the truth or falsity of the other party’s claims (Bennett, 2017). The ad hominem is common in the media and politics, where individuals slander their opponents with an aim of defamation (Bustamante & Dahlman, 2015). Rather than candidates addressing their opponents’ stance on a particular issue of discussion, or effectiveness as a political leader, an ad hominem chooses to focus on issues with personality, patterns of speech, way of dressing, and other components that affect the candidate’s popularity (Ericson, 2018). In this manner, the ad hominem promotes unethical behavior that seeks to manipulate supporters by appealing to irrelevant shortcomings instead of addressing the core matter.
Fallacy As Seen In Personal and Professional Life
The ad hominem fallacy is evident in most personal and professional businesses today, which tends to affect decisions made (Bennett, 2017). Notably, both in personal and professional life one may come across issues that you do not connect with despite their advantageous stand (Bustamante & Dahlman, 2015). As a result, at times one finds him or herself dismissing a particular individual on basis of their personal trait. For instance, when discussing a project and an individual suggests that members of a business team should beware of a particular risk, he or she is discredited based on a negative issue pertaining to their life such as by highlighting that no one should not pay attention to what the individual suggests since they tend to argue a lot (Bustamante & Dahlman, 2015). This is also common in our day-to-day life where one’s point of view is invalidated based on their low-level of education or marital status and ethnicity.
Means To Lessen Problems Arising From Fallacy
Arguably, the ad hominem fallacy comes in many different forms and experienced in our daily interactions. However, knowing how to evade the fallacy not only makes an individual powerful but also improves their interaction with other individuals (Bustamante & Dahlman, 2015). Avoiding the ad hominem fallacy requires that one is able to highlight an ad hominem argument and have a plan in place that will help in defending oneself suitably (Bustamante & Dahlman, 2015). It is worth noting that in some scenarios, personal attacks are relevant to the debate at hand (Bustamante & Dahlman, 2015). For instance, individuals may wish to illustrate a long-standing character that could be the possible influence to their poor actions. However, it is important to note that since such arguments are not rooted on a factual basis, there are high chances of the debate taking a wrong turn (Bustamante & Dahlman, 2015). Therefore, it is important to prevent such an argument taking an ad hominem approach from proceeding in order to protect oneself (Bustamante & Dahlman, 2015). Nonetheless, whenever people find themselves in a position where they have to launch an ad hominem attack, they should weigh the adversity of the outcome by incorporating positive correlation to turn the debate in their favor.
Overall, given that an ad hominem argument takes the form of logical misconception one should try avoid it by justifying on basis of factual and logical reasoning. The fallacy has two types of attacks namely internal and external. One should always avoid attacking the opponent based on their character as it is interpreted as a sign of weakness.
References
Bustamante, T. & Dahlman, C. (2015). Argument Types and Fallacies in Legal Argumentation . New York: Springer.
Zhang, H. (2016). Mastering Logical Fallacies: The Definitive Guide to Flawless Rhetoric and Bulletproof Logic . Emeryville: Callisto Media Incorporated.
Bennett, B. (2017). Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies (Academic Edition) . Boston: eBookIt.com.
Ericson, W. (2018). Logical Fallacies: The Ultimate Guide to Dealing with Bad Arguments . Scotts Valley: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Copeland, B. J. (2019). Logical Fallacies: What Is a Logical Fallacy, Exactly? (All Logical Fallacies) . Independently Published.
