Logical Fallacies

From time to time I point out common logical fallacies that unfortunately infest our public discourse. Today ' s lesson isargumentum ad hominem, in which the debater claims that some characteristic of the proponent of a view renders that person ' s argument invalid.This has three forms. Tu qoque is pointing out that the proponent has said or done something in the past which is contrary to his or her position. This may be embarrassing, but it does not in any way invalidate the argument the person is currently making. And of course, people can change their minds, although this is something politicians apparently are not allowed to do ( " flip-flopping " ).The second form is guilt by association. This essentially means pointing out that someone who we should consider unsavory holds or held the same position. For example, Hitler was a vegetarian so that invalidates arguments for vegetarianism.But the one I specifically want to discuss today is called the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy. This is claiming that some characteristics of the opponent make him or her likely to take the position, so why should we pay attention to the logic of the argument? Again, this is a distraction which is in no way a valid responses to an argument. Another problem with this is that it often is not even true.For example, suppose someone made the claim that my argument for single payer national health care is invalid because I have never held a private sector job, or been self-employed, therefore I ...
Source: Stayin' Alive - Category: American Health Source Type: blogs