Ad hominem

I’ve been meaning to write this article for a while but I’ve been pretty busy recently banking all those checks from “big pharma” companies and living the high life on the proceeds. Also, this last week has been full of Libertarian Party meetings. We’ve been busy planning to remove all labor, environmental and safety regulations from corporations; it’s very time consuming.

Seriously, I have been accused of those things recently: in The Huffington Post and in the comments. Funny thing, the accusers always think this refutes the arguments I’ve been making, as if an (alleged) affiliation with (say) the Libertarians somehow magically changes Robert F. Kennedy’s article so that it’s now true instead of a pack of lies. Well they’re wrong. This mode of reasoning is a logical fallacy known as ad hominem: attacking the person presenting the argument, instead of pointing out a flaw in their actual argument. It’s a fallacy because even if the criticism of the person is true, his argument may still be valid. You can only tell if the argument is valid by examining the actual argument to see if it is actually valid.

Three cases

I can show what I mean by presenting three possible scenarios:

Case 1

Just supposing I really am a paid shill for the pharma companies. I’m writing my piece because I’m paid to express those views, not because I have arrived at them by honestly examining facts and evidence. That means I’m writing my piece irrespective of the facts, and so my piece may well be factually inaccurate. If that’s true, it should be easy for my opponent to point out these inaccuracies shouldn’t it? So why don’t they? Why do they insist instead on just saying I’m a pharma industry shill? Surely what matters is if the argument I have presented is correct or not?

Case 2

Alternatively, suppose I’m still a pharma industry shill, and I’m still writing my piece because I’m paid to do so, but suppose that my piece just happens to coincide with the facts. My piece is factually correct, purely by accident. So what is the relevance that I am a pharma industry shill?  My piece is correct regardless. Surely what matters is that the argument I have presented is correct?

Case 3

I’m not a paid shill for the pharma companies, and I have written my piece based on what I think is a good honest evaluation of the facts and evidence. Of course, my arguments could still be wrong – I’m only human after all. So how does anyone tell if my argument is correct? Surely they would still have to examine my arguments to see if they are correct or not?

In all three cases above, my status vis-à-vis being paid by the pharma industry or not is irrelevant: what is important is the data – if my piece is correct or not. It’s always the data that’s important, not my political affiliations, not who pays me, not my qualifications (or alleged lack thereof), not any other agenda I might have. Nothing about me is important. Only the data is important.

Attacking the person instead of the argument they present is intellectually lazy. It’s a substitute for thinking. It’s also 100% flawed reasoning: you don’t arrive at the conclusion from the argument presented. The funny thing is, people on both sides of the political spectrum criticize the other side for this method of debate, and yet they don’t realize they do it themselves. For example, those on the left will rail at Karl Rove for smearing his opponents and yet they will be the first to criticize their opponents based purely on a connection to (say) a corporation and profits rather than to any actual wrongdoing.

Critical thinking means you understand logical fallacies – you recognize them in someone else’s argument and you don’t rely on them in forming your own arguments. You’ll notice I didn’t criticize Kennedy because he is a lawyer with no knowledge of the science, or because he is (allegedly) opposed to big corporations. I attacked his data as being factually inaccurate. And if you want to criticize me you’re going to have to do the same.

Comments

[Jan Haugland]

Yikes. After reading through the huff-comments I feel like having a bath. You and the other skeptics were really talking to a wall of mindless hysteria.

[outeast]

While agreeing with you, I'll suggest an addendum: you point out a tendency to criticize ... opponents based purely on a connection to (say) a corporation and profits rather than to any actual wrongdoing.' I'd point out, though, than in many instances the (especially concealed) connection to a corporation (or whatever) can actually be wrongdoing.

If, for example, you were indeed a Big Pharma Shill then while your case would still need to be jusdged on its merits you would be guilty of unethical behaviour.

Likewise (or more so) with medical research - for a researcher to receive undeclared funding from a party with an interest in the findings of the research would be unethical regardless of the veracity of the research itself. As you say, this would not per se mean the findings of the research would be invalid; provided this latter point were recognized, though, an attack on the researcher for unethical behaviour would not then be fallacious.

[TSK]

Oi !

I have a few questions regarding an "ad
hominem".
It is an "ad hominem"
- ridiculing an opponent by his profession
and actually calling him an idiot ?
- alleging repeatedly that an opponent is
devoid of "scientific knowledge" (how
should an opponent should disprove
that ?!) ?
- referring to the writings of an opponent
as "drivel","blather" or accusing him of
"semantic games" as a convienient excuse
for not answering to uncomfortable
arguments ?

[Orac]

The ad hominem is not always improper; in the case of a "shill" who is pretending to be "objective" and to have no connection with pharma it is quite appropriate to "out" that person. Even in appropriate cases, however, the ad hominem is not a refutation of that person's arguments; it merely serves to increase (appropriately) the level of skepticism about what that person is saying. That still leaves the task of actually using evidence, logic, and sound arguments to refute what that person is saying.

Of course, that's not what the cranks do. They just fling the accusation that you're a "pharma shill" without any evidence to support their accusation. It's transparent; and it's usually preaching to the choir. The only people likely to believe such accusations are usually the ones inclined to disagree with your point of view anyway.

[Rockstar]

I love it

[outeast]

TSK:

This page may help: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

Orac:

It's purely semantic, but I'd say that the ad hominen is always improper - because if the criticism is justified and not fallacious then it is not an ad hominem by definition. But I'm probably wrong:)

[James Lorigan]

TSK:

What Orac and outeast said.

Regarding the specific questions you asked:
1)>>It is an "ad hominem"
- ridiculing an opponent by his profession
and actually calling him an idiot ?>>

It depends when you call him an idiot. If you do so during the argument instead of addressing the arguments of your opponent then yes, this is the ad hominem fallacy in all its glory. If you refute all of your opponents arguments logically and then - after it's established that you've won the argument - call them an idiot, this is not the ad hominem fallacy (although it may still be false). The difference is that in the former case you've attempted to refute an argument by attacking the person making it, while in the latter you've refuted the argument by attacking the argument itself. The subsequent attack on the person making it has no bearing on the outcome of your debate.

2)>>alleging repeatedly that an opponent is
devoid of "scientific knowledge" (how
should an opponent should disprove
that ?!) ?>>

The simplest way to refute the allegation that you are 'devoid of scientific knowledge' is to show that you actually have studied (and understood) the science relating to the topic under discussion. For example, you can cite articles in peer-reviewed journals which provide evidence supporting your case, or point to science textbooks or professional bodies with relevant expertise who consider your hypothesis to be correct. (There are other ways of showing scientific knowlege, of course, but these are the most accessible to non-scientists anad non-experts.)

3)>>- referring to the writings of an opponent as "drivel","blather" or accusing him of "semantic games" as a convienient excuse for not answering to uncomfortable
arguments ?>>

The situation you've described would qualify as ad hominem - you've ignored the argument and attacked your opponent (in this case by attacking his communication skills). On the other hand, if the arguments had been refuted and you then accused your opponent of sloppy writing this would not qualify as ad hominem. The ad hominem fallacy refers to attacks on a person as a substitute for attacks on their argument, not to attacks on the person generally.

[TSK]

Thanks, outeast, I have now found yet
another excellent collection of
fallacies :-) .

My thoughts if an "ad hominem" may be used:
Yes, if the argument depends on the person
*itself* (Appeal to Authority, Emotional
Appeal, Appeal to Force, Appeal to Popu-
larity).
While a "tu quoque" is always a *logical*
fallacy, it is still advisable if the
accuser uses it as example for his own
moral superiority or if he wants that
the accused should do something. In this case he may be right, but *he* has
no right to say it.
We could not ignore the importance of
confidence; it is impossible to check all
things itself, so we must trust someone
and deal therefore with ad hominems.

Oh, and before I forget it:
I would like to hear Skeptico's opinion
on my questions.

[TSK]

Hi James,

first thanks for the answers.
Yet I see problems with the answer for one
and three. You are basically saying that
the "ad hominem" depends on a valid refutation before the derogatory remark.
The problem is:
We are not infallible, our argumentation
may be fallacious and the opponent may be
correct. The facts and evidence may change.

So it is entirely possible that you think
that you are right, but are actually not.
Do you think it is acceptable to use attacks
on the person because you are thinking you
are right ? In fact, I think it is "poison-
ing the well" because with insults and
ridicule you encourage other to ignore the
defense your opponent may bring up.

[TSK]

Hi James,

first thanks for the answers.
Yet I see problems with the answer for one
and three. You are basically saying that
the "ad hominem" depends on a valid refutation before the derogatory remark.
The problem is:
We are not infallible, our argumentation
may be fallacious and the opponent may be
correct. The facts and evidence may change.

So it is entirely possible that you think
that you are right, but are actually not.
Do you think it is acceptable to use attacks
on the person because you are thinking you
are right ? In fact, I think it is "poison-
ing the well" because with insults and
ridicule you encourage other to ignore the
defense your opponent may bring up.

[James Lorigan]

TSK:

Thanks for the constructive criticism.

Firstly, I agree with you regarding personal attacks. They do nothing to foster genuine debate, have a pretty good chance of turning a calm and sensible discussion of opposing points of view into a shouting match, and should be avoided. However, my last comment wasn't about whether I thought that personal attacks were acceptable. I don't. It was about when a personal attack can be described as an example of the ad hominem fallacy. I apologise for not making that clear.

>>You are basically saying that
the "ad hominem" depends on a valid refutation before the derogatory remark.>>

I don't think that refuting (or believing you've refuted) your opponent gives you the right to personally attack them. However, neither do I think that every derogatory remark qualifies as an instance of the ad hominem fallacy.

Let's say that the refutation you've given is in fact invalid, and that your opponents argument stands. Thinking you've refuted them, you attack them personally. But you do not pretend that this attack has any bearing on the argument they've made - it is an attack on your opponent, pure and simple. You might say that this is obnoxious and unacceptable behaviour, and I'd agree with you. But it is not an example of the ad hominem fallacy, because you have not tried to refute an argument by attacking the person making it. You have tried - unsuccessfully, in this case - to refute your opponents argument using an argument of your own. Independently of that, you have personally attacked your opponent.

In summary: the ad hominem fallacy refers, IMHO, to attempts to refute an argument by personally attacking the person making it. Personal attacks which do not attempt to refute an argument are unpleasant, but are not instances of the ad hominem fallacy. That was the point I was trying to make.

>>Do you think it is acceptable to use attacks on the person because you are thinking you are right ?>>

Emphatically no. Quite apart from the ethics of personal attacks, it would be deeply impractical. Everyone goes into a debate believing - at least initially - that they are right. If everyone felt they could attack anyone they believed to be wrong, that'd be the end of rational debate.

[Rick]

Interesting that association with a pharmaceutical company almost always evokes an ad hominem. Acutally the ad hominem metastasizes since by default the data must be tainted or just plain falsified.

Pharmaceutical companies are for-profit, secretive and occasionally put out strange drugs (Vioxx, Bextra, Phen Fen and other legalistic cash cows) and as a consequence objective scientists get lumped in with the hacks. You can usually "out" someone arguing methods and data if your position is sound and you know the literature. But the ad hominem strategy works better for the crank since its the sloppy way out.

[Prometheus]

The "ad hominem" and other fallacies of logic are only fallacies if they are used as an argument. In other words, if you say that the earth is flat and my only argument is to say "You're an idiot!", then I have commited a logical fallacy.

On the other hand, if I refute your argument with data and then call you an idiot, that is NOT a logical fallacy.

Likewise, some of the logical fallacies (e.g. "post hoc, ergo propter hoc") may not be fallacies if used as part of an argument. For example, if I argue that rain caused a traffic accident, part of my argument would be that the accident occured AFTER the rain, since the rain could not have been a factor if the accident occured before the rain.

On the other hand, if my sole argument was that the accident occured after the rain, and so the rain must be at fault, then I am engaging in a logical fallacy.

It may not be "proper" or "conducive to discussion" to call people "idiots" (or worse) when they make ridiculous arguments, but it sure makes me feel better.

Prometheus

[Skeptico]

Re from outeast: in many instances the (especially concealed) connection to a corporation (or whatever) can actually be wrongdoing.

And from Orac: in the case of a "shill" who is pretending to be "objective" and to have no connection with pharma it is quite appropriate to "out" that person . Even in appropriate cases, however, the ad hominem is not a refutation of that person's arguments; it merely serves to increase (appropriately) the level of skepticism about what that person is saying.

I agree 100%. In fact, in some cases there may even be a legal requirement to divulge a conflict of interest.

I’ll just add one point. If you know the person is biased in some way (eg connected to a corporation), you may decide you need to examine that person’s arguments more closely, or obtain independent verification, before accepting their arguments. Of course, we all know some people can be biased. But you still have to refute their arguments – it is not enough alone to point out a bias.

I’m pretty sure you were both saying something similar to this.

[Skeptico]

TSK:

Re: It is an "ad hominem"
- ridiculing an opponent by his profession

If that is the sole method to refute an argument, then yes.

However, if it is not the profession that is being ridiculed, but the person’s fallacious appeal to authority that is being ridiculed, it is not an ad hominem.

I’ll explain. Supposing a person, during an internet discussion, claimed that his argument carried weight because he was (say), a physicist, that claim would itself be an appeal to authority logical fallacy. Pointing this out would not be a fallacy.

Re: and actually calling him an idiot ?

James and Prometheus have already answered this pretty well, but I’ll just add my answer.

Some people think an ad hominem is an insult, such as calling someone an idiot. It isn’t, not necessarily anyway. It’s an ad hominem only if the “idiot” insult is the only attempt to refute your opponent’s point. If you call him an idiot and also refute the point another way, it’s not an ad hominem.

For example, if you say, “homeopathy works” and I reply, “you are an idiot for saying that” - that is an ad hominem: I have attacked you personally instead of refuting the argument you presented.

However, if I say, “you are an idiot for saying that, and here are numerous studies that prove it doesn’t work”, that is not ad hominem – I have refuted the argument as well as attacking you personally. (Of course, I have also been unnecessarily rude, but that’s a separate issue.)

Re: - alleging repeatedly that an opponent is
devoid of "scientific knowledge" (how
should an opponent should disprove
that ?!) ?

Same with the “idiot” point above. In addition, if your opponent cannot understand your argument because he does not understand the scientific method, it may be a valid argument.

Re: - referring to the writings of an opponent
as "drivel","blather" or accusing him of
"semantic games" as a convienient excuse
for not answering to uncomfortable
arguments ?

Here you are criticizing the opponent’s arguments (the writings of the opponent are "drivel", "blather" etc), and not the person, so it is not ad hominem. Likewise if your opponent is playing semantic games instead of arguing about actual data, that is a criticism of your opponent’s argument, not the person, so again it is not ad hominem.

[Mike]

I've been a good friend of Richard since 1997. I can state with authority that he has no connection whatsoever with the pharma industry. He also is not a current or former academic.

He IS one of the smartest and frequently most witty people I have ever met, though. I've learned not to try to argue with Richard unless you have facts to back up your position!

[outeast]

An insult is not valid as argument. However, if someone is patently an idiot then that is a perfectly valid observation to make.

[TSK]

Hi !
I slept over this but it seems to me that
there is no possibility to circumvent it.
Ok, I think that we all agree that a simple
"idiot" instead of an answer is fully
qualified as ad hominem. Amen.

Secondly, some insults like "tightwad" in
a discussion (which may be triggered by
anger or what) cannot qualify in most
circumstances as ad hominem because they
neither have something to do with the
argument of the opponent nor do they try
to disqualify the author of the argument.

And this second point is something where
I beg to differ. In fact, I disagree
completely with the believe that "idiot"
may not be seen as "ad hominem" because
you added a refutation or that it seems
true.
An argumentation is only that if you can
speak it out and when the people listen.
Any attempt to silence or disqualify an
opponent so that in future nobody listen
to him and/or dismiss him as "refuted"
IS IMHO an "ad hominem". This category
are insults referring to the mental capacity
(idiot), ability to discuss (blather) or
credulity (fraud, gullible). I add slander
and ridicule, too.

So why many people (and skeptics) do not
count this as "ad hominem" ? Now I come
to the unpleasant part; see it as a
subjective point of view where I may
errornous.
The reason to ask you my questions and
especially Skeptico is that I have the
suspicion that his "ad hominem" definition
is so tuned that rude and obnoxious
behaviour are perfectly acceptable because they are not "logical fallacies".
Imagine some vitriolic people who are weak
and therefore scared to be beaten up.
A solution: they claim that they are
"pacifists" defining pacifism as absence
of *physical* abuse so they can relentlessly
insult people and still think they are
fine people.

Absurd ? I have found an article from Orac
"How not to win friends [...]" where he
tried to be diplomatic and is annoyed about
himself that he started with a "quack".
Why is he so concerned about it if it is really valid to do this if he add a
refutation ? I think because the people are
friends of him so he knows perfectly that
the believe of a blunt approach as
"just" an insult is an illusion. His friends
will see it as an "ad hominem" even if they
do not know the term.

[Skeptico]

TSK:

Re: I disagree completely with the believe that "idiot" may not be seen as "ad hominem" because you added a refutation or that it seems true.

If I use a valid argument to refute my opponent’s argument, my opponent’s argument is refuted. Adding “idiot” does not invalidate the valid arguments I used to refute my opponent’s argument – they still stand – so it cannot be fallacious reasoning.

This is a point that people new to fallacies often have trouble with. You really have to think, does the “idiot” or whatever comment invalidate any valid arguments made?

Re: An argumentation is only that if you can speak it out and when the people listen. Any attempt to silence or disqualify an opponent so that in future nobody listen to him and/or dismiss him as "refuted" IS IMHO an "ad hominem". This category are insults referring to the mental capacity (idiot), ability to discuss (blather) or credulity (fraud, gullible). I add slanderand ridicule, too.

Attempt to silence an opponent with threatening talk could be perhaps considered an appeal to force - but I think you would have difficulty claiming just calling someone an idiot was in that category.

Comments about an opponents arguments being blather are comments about their arguments, and so by definition are not ad hominem.

Re: The reason to ask you my questions and especially Skeptico is that I have the suspicion that his "ad hominem" definition is so tuned that rude and obnoxious behaviour are perfectly acceptable because they are not "logical fallacies". Imagine some vitriolic people who are weak and therefore scared to be beaten up. A solution: they claim that they are "pacifists" defining pacifism as absence of *physical* abuse so they can relentlessly insult people and still think they are fine people.

Well, this thread is about logical fallacies, not about whether it is OK or not to be rude.

Regarding your hypothetical “pacifists” – if they were just insulting people with no other arguments, that would be ad hom so I’m not sure of the relevance.

[TSK]

| If I use a valid argument to refute my
| opponent’s argument, my opponent’s
| argument is refuted.

Correct. But I see no problem that a
text may contain *both* valid argumentation
and fallacious reasoning.

| Adding “idiot” does not invalidate the
| valid arguments I used to refute my
| opponent’s argument – they still stand –
| so it cannot be fallacious reasoning.

A valid refutation must be specific about
the proposition of the argument to be
refuted.
The problem with an "ad hominem" is that
it is almost ever *not* specific.
Look at the reason you wrote the article;
a main component of it is mercury. But a
"paid pharma shill" may be responsible for
suppression of homeopathy, acupuncture,
bio vitamin pills etc. pp., too.
Nothing with mercury at all.
A "blue/red stater" may be blamed for even more.
So while an "idiot" seems to be just an
insult because it seems to miss the point,
it overlooks that it is an *all-purpose*
refutation by alleging that an idiot is
not able to build up an correct argumentation !
Coming back to your answer:
No, an "idiot" does not invalidate your
refutation, but the use of it broadens your
refutation to (oversimplifing) *all* what your opponent is saying. That is almost
always wrong, therefore a fallacious
reasoning and an "ad hominem".
This is the reason for the term "poisoning
the well": not just the current arguments
in the current debate are concerned, but
it tries to dishonour all arguments
from the specific author now and in future !

| Attempt to silence an opponent with
| threatening talk could be perhaps
| considered an appeal to force - but I
| think you would have difficulty
| claiming just calling someone an
| idiot was in that category.

No, I was thinking of groups which are
labeled and where the opponent does not
want to be in this group. This may
effectively silence him if the arguments
have an embarassing similarity to that
ones used by the alleged group.

| Comments about an opponents arguments
| being blather are comments about their
| arguments, and so by definition are
| not ad hominem.

As arguments don't grow on trees but are
created by a opponent your statement
that value judgements about these does
not include the originator seem a little
bit like sophistry.

[Skeptico]

TSK:

One last time: the ad hominem logical fallacy is “X cannot be true, as you claim, because you’re an idiot”. Simply saying “you’re an idiot” doesn’t even rise to the level of a logical fallacy: it is just rude. I realize you have to keep arguing this point because you have an agenda to pursue vis-a-vis my Loyd Auerbach post. But I explained in detail where Auerbach was wrong: you just don’t accept my argument. That’s up to you, but no matter how many times you try to contradict me, it is not an ad hominem if the “idiot” comment is in addition to a refutation of the argument. End of story. All you are proving now is that you lack of understanding of logical fallacies.

As for sophistry: your argument that criticism on of an argument must be a criticism of the arguer (therefore ad hominem), is pure sophistry. It is a ridiculous argument. By saying your comment was blather, I am just saying your comment was blather (nonsensical). You may disagree, but just disagreeing with an argument does not make it ad hominem. This item could not possibly be clearer: comments about an opponents arguments being blather are comments about their arguments, and so by definition are not ad hominem. And that is the end of this argument too.

I am really getting tired of this continued nonsense from you. This is now an argument ad nauseam: the false proof of a statement by (prolonged) repetition. No matter how many times you continue with this you are still wrong. So post something new or go away.

[Rockstar]

I vote for "Go Away".

GO AWAY IN 2005!

[TSK]

Yep, so we reached a dead point and it is
again the reader who decides. I could simply
not resist after seeing your article about
"ad hominems" after Auerbach. But I am delighted that your form and style of
argumentation improved since a lot in my
eyes (And no, I am honest now). Asking for
something new: You know that I am making my
point extensively and I don't believe that
you like it. Last comment for this article
from me, I will see what the time brings on.

[Skeptico]

TSK:

Yes, I know you thought you were on to something when you saw this post, and I know you think you are making a valid point, but you are wrong on both counts. My purpose of posting about ad hominem was to explain the anatomy of this particular logical fallacy. Your continued misunderstanding of it has enabled me (and others) to explain it, and the common misunderstandings of it, in some detail. This has been useful, but it is time for it to end.

One final time:

1) An insult is not ad hominem if it is in addition to refuting the argument. This is a common error for people new to logical fallacies: to misunderstand this difference. The thing to remember is this: it is a logical fallacy if you don’t refute the argument. If you have refuted the argument the reasoning cannot be fallacious, no matter what else you say.

2) Criticizing someone’s arguments (eg the arguments are “blather”) is by definition not ad hominem.

[trrll]

Pointing to industry funding as indicative of bias, in addition to being ad hominem, is also an example of confusing correlation with causality.

Industry will of course be most likely to fund scientists whose research furthers their business goals. Given that most scientists are chronically underfunded, in the sense of not having enough money to do all of the research that they would like to do, it is virtually a certainty that many scientists whose results favor the position of an industrial donor will receive funding from that source, whether or not that funding results in a scientific bias.

And of course, industrial donors will prefer to fund the most talented scientists, so the higher the quality of a scientist's research, the more likely he will be to have received industrial funding.

Therefore, if you discount all conclusions by scientists with industrial ties, you introduce a bias against the highest quality science that supports the industrial position.

Moreover, the ability of industrial sponsors to influence research is wildly overrated. In academia, very few scientists are much influenced by funding source. If they wanted to be told what to do, they'd go to work for industry and get paid better. And even industrial scientists are unlikely to stick with an employer who asks them to falsify or conceal results--the sort of people who are attracted to a scientific career tend to be fairly intolerant of that sort of demand from an employer.

Scientists have biases, to be sure, but they are usually personal biases--scientists tend to get attached to their pet theories (especially ones to which they have devoted a substantial fraction of their professional lives) and are reluctant to let go of them.

[TSK]

I keep it short and crisp.
Wikipedia:
Poisoning the well is a pre-emptive logical fallacy where adverse information about someone is presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting everything he is about to say.
Fallacy files:
To poison the well is to commit a pre-emptive ad hominem strike against an argumentative opponent. [...]
However, what sets Poisoning the Well apart
from the standard Ad Hominem is the fact
that the poisoning is done before the opponent has a chance to make a case.
[same source]
A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent.
[Which is independent of other arguments !]

In Auerbachs case you introduced him *first*
as ghost-hunter to discredit him and called
him an idiot. Is it a "poisoning of the
well" according to the definitions above
(not *your* definition), yes or no ?

[Skeptico]

I thought your previous post was your “last comment”.

Once again:
1) An insult is not ad hominem if it is in addition to refuting the argument. This is a common error for people (like TSK) new to logical fallacies: to misunderstand this difference. The thing to remember is this: it is a logical fallacy if you don’t refute the argument. If you have refuted the argument the reasoning cannot be fallacious, no matter what else you say.
2) Criticizing someone’s arguments (eg the arguments are “blather”) is by definition not ad hominem.

I’m sorry you don’t understand this but this is the case.

[TSK]

| I thought your previous post was
| your “last comment”.

Yes, bad boy I am. To err is human, isn't
it ?
Yes, you may be right that normally an
argumentum ad hominem is committed if your
refutation based solely on a personal attack.
But in the special case of an "Poisoning of
the Well" it does *not* apply and I am not
surprised that you avoid the question in
charge. Please cite the source if you still
believe that a "Poisoning of the Well" may
be justified by adding arguments.

Oh, I have found just this comment:
"Well-poisoning is recommended whenever your claim might not survive sustained scrutiny. It is also useful for dealing with an opponent whose point goes against received opinion but is, unfortunately, valid. Judicious poisoning will make such an opponent look so foolish that people will ignore the validity. It will also make you look witty and confident, and may even serve to conceal the fact that you are wrong."

I could not say it better.

[Skeptico]

Yes, I am right that an ad hominem is only committed if the refutation based solely on a personal attack. A "Poisoning of the Well" – if the arguments are also refuted – is no exception.

I realize you have to pursue this because you don’t like what I wrote about Auerbach. But I justified my criticism of Auerback, and your continued nit picking is now just extremely tedious.

[TSK]

| A "Poisoning of the Well" – if the
| arguments are also refuted – is no
| exception

Fine, then you will have no problem to
give me a source which is describing the
PTW and where your claim that it is
acceptable by refuting the arguments
afterwards is met by the definition.
You are claiming that you are thinking
in a scientific way, come on and provide something that substantiate your claim.

[Skeptico]

This is not your private thread where you get to question me about Loyd Auerbach; it is a thread about ad hominem, specifically the “pharma shill” fallacy. You have derailed the discussion enough now, and it will stop.

You are obsessed by Auerbach. Unfortunately for you, I explained where Auerbach was wrong, and no amount of games from you will change this fact. You had plenty of time on that thread to show where Auerbach was correct and I was wrong. You failed, although I left your final post there for anyone reading it to make up their own minds. This is the end of the discussion about Auerbach. If you post any more of this nonsense I will close comments on this thread. Please don’t make me do this – others may wish to comment on the “big pharma shill” argument which was the point of this thread not your silly vendetta.

If the argument is refuted it is not a logical fallacy – that should be obvious to anyone.

[Sotek]

An insult is only a logical fallacy when it is being used as an argument.

"You are wrong because XYZ" followed up with "You're an idiot" is not a logical fallacy, because the insult is just that; an insult.

It's not an argument, and it's not an insult pretending to be an argument.

Even if you say "You're an idiot, and you're wrong because XYZ", the insult remains just an insult, nothing more.

If anything's poisoning the well, it'd be pharma shill ad hom.

[Jon]

I agree with what you say. However, regarding the "ad hominem" in particular I think there are times when it's necessary to judge someone's credentials or background when judging what they say. Especially when you don't have the necessary education or skills in a particular field to go through mountains of evidence.
For example:
1) A consensus of a dozen nobel-prize winning scientists in climatology state that the evidence shows that global warming is happening and a serious concern.
2) An oil industry think tank (created by lawyers and corporations with vested interests in the claim) responds by saying that the warming is not a problem.

Now, in this case, global warming is not just controversial but relies on lots of detailed, technical evidence, computer models, and statistics. Most non-scientists probably aren't able to go through it all or create their own computer simulations.
In this case, I'd say the oil industry would be less likely to be trustworthy on the issue and that it'd be logical to believe the independent scientists, based on the credentials.

In day-to-day life you have to make many, very quick decisions on who to trust (such as medical decisions, advertisting claims,etc), and in lots of cases where you can't sit down and look at a long debate, I don't think it's illogical to use an ad hominem like this.

[BronzeDog]

Normally, I prefer to avoid discussing credentials and motivation, since many of the topics I deal with are pretty black-and-white in the data, but Jon has a good point: Sometimes, you have to trust someone based on their background, at least until you get the time to look at the data yourself.

As for global warming: It's a legitimate controversy, and I've heard good-sounding arguments from both sides, so I'm not terribly sure about it. In that case, however, I err on the side of caution, since behaviors to reduce global warming are healthy for other reasons, as well.

[Peter Gaffney]

Are there ways of knowing other than science?

Once you qualify the question, to specify that you're talking here about the objective reality of the universe -- in other words, scientific truth -- I'm not sure it's meaningful any longer. Science obviously rejects/ignores/excludes anything which is not scientifically demonstrable. That's why there's such a debate about hypotheses concerning the existence of multiple universes; if -- which may or may not be the case -- we have no way of scientifically demonstrating the existence or non-existence of other universes, is this a scientifically meaningful topic?

And what if science -- as may or may not be the case with quantum physics -- leads us to places where objectivity breaks down? Science is predicated on the assumption that there is such a thing as objective truth, but it may be that "objective truth" is a concept that is only useful on a macroscopic scale.

There is also, I think, the very real possibility that consciousness is ultimately beyond science. We will certainly learn virtually all there is to know about how the brain works and maybe even how consciousness is produced, but I can imagine that the mystery of consciousness as experience (the qualitative difference between a futuristic computer which can to perceive, manipulate and communicate data with the precision of a human and actual human experience) will remain like an eye in a mirror-less world which can see everything but itself.

And of course there is moral knowledge. Somehow we KNOW that killing is wrong and that justice is good. There may be a scientific explanation why human beings tend to hold the belief that these things are true, but we don't believe... we KNOW. There is, in fact, a whole inner world that is purely subjective. Very real, but by definition outside the domain of science.

Don't get me wrong -- we "should" (of course, when I say "should" I'm definitely NOT making a scientific claim; there is no scientific basis for VALUING scientific thinking over magical, irrational, confusing ranting) be rigorous in the application of science to the natural world. We should vigorously fight to ensure that, legally and as a shared cultural value, science is the standard by which human beings agree that measurable phenomena will be measured. This does not necessarily mean that we should endeavor to found a culture where a document like the Bible is generally considered valueless or even reduced to the same status as a novel -- we can't live without subjective values; it is not necessarily the case that all or even most intelligent people in this ideal scientific study would abandon religion... it would, however, be the case that religion would be understood as a subjective matter. God, mountain-climbing and classical music might be the most important things in the life of an intelligent, rational person of the culture we're hoping for (by the way, although I would seek to create this culture, I would also vigorously oppose its forced imposition), but this person would understand that the truth of God is more akin to the truth of mountain-climbing and classical music than it is to the truth of evolution and relativity. Profound religious experiences (e.g., Zen satori) would still be capable of totally transforming a person's worldview -- in the same way falling in love or the knowledge of one's impending demise undoubtedly do -- but people (these people I am hoping to see predominating in a couple of generations, at least partly as a result of what WE do to transform culture... but only through peaceful, non-coercive, non-discriminatory, respectful, tolerant action) would realize that subjective realization is without scientific content. (I met and talked to Jesus Christ 25 years ago while on an LSD trip; you might define this as a valid religious experience, but it did not convince me that a historical individual 2000 years ago rose from the dead as a matter of historical fact.)

Anyway, while there matters beyond science, the problem with stuff which is generally bundled together as pseudoscience -- parapsychology, alien visitors, astrology, New Age healing, Biblical Creationism, etc. -- is that its practioners won't commit to whether they're presenting something which should be taken seriously as science or something that is manifestly subjective. I mentioned the possible limits of objectivity on the quantum level, but this crap... er, this stuff... exists, if it DOES exist, on a level which should be accessible to scientific inquiry. Evidence has been presented for all this stuff... and almost without exception that evidence has failed to be convincing by scientific standards.

It's a difficult business. I am committed to tolerance for other people's values and ideas, as long as they don't -- like the views of some fundamentalist Christians and others -- impinge on my own freedom and values. Also, I am not convinced I'M right and people who disagree with me are therefore necessarily wrong; some huge number of Americans believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead; I personally think that's so unlikely as to be not worth seriously considering, and yet what makes me think I'm wiser and more enlightened than a majority of Americans, including a number whose IQ's are equal to or higher than my own? As long as we're playing by the accepted rules of science, however, I'm on pretty firm ground rejecting Creationism as a scientifically respectable hypothesis. (It's kind of ironic -- as long as they make scientific claims for Christianity, I can be pretty confident in declaring that I'm right and they're wrong... but if they say that it's a matter of faith, not knowledge or evidence accessible to science, then the debate is unwinnable, because there's no proving that science is a better way of knowing than God's revelation and faith. Frankly, the longer they keep pushing creationism or I.D. as science, the better, because -- though we may suffer temporary setbacks, given how benighted so many Americans are, but we are bound to win in the end. In the process, a few fundamentalist kids who are smart and willing to think will see that the arguments of creationism/I.D. can be refuted, and I think they'll be more likely to question Christian fundamentalism as a whole than if they were told from the start that science is merely a test of faith. (Some mystical Jews believe the day will come when it will be conclusively demonstrated that the Torah is false and that there is no God; those who continue to believe in the face of overwhelming evidence will be truly blessed. People who have an attitude like that are of course immune to rational argument, and of course there are plenty of fundamentalist Christians who essentially of the same attitude already (they are not, unlike my hypothetical Christian in a future culture of science, saying that religion and science are two separate realms of thought; they are saying that science and the Bible relate to the same reality, but the Bible is always right and science, where the two differ, must be mistaken. There's always the pernicious argument that God placed evidence of evolution in the ground deliberately, as a test... as well as what I think is an absolutely absurd argument -- that just as in the creation God created adult animals with navels, although they had never served their natural purpose (since these animals had not been born), He also created a fossil record out of some aesthetic sense that an aburptly created world should resemble a world that developed "naturally." Wow.

Finally, to make an honest admission, I must say that I am not convinced that ghosts do not exist. I've never had the slightest supernatural experience, intuition or anythng (outside of drug experiences back in college), but my dad's roommate describes seeing a ghost in her hotel room one night, while on the phone with a friend -- who remembers the call and remembers my friend telling her that she was seeing a ghost on the other side of the room. This "ghost" remained in the room for some minutes before disappearing. Short of my friend lying (which I strongly doubt) or her having an isolated, extremely vivid hallucination for no apparent reason, what could it have been? I've had other friends describe ghostly encounters as well. Have serious scientific researchers come to any conclusions, compiled significant evidence or proposed any interesting explanatory hypotheses for ghost sightings? (I've never been much interested in the supernatural. Given that natural phenomena, from deep sea life to black holes, is so extraordinarily interesting and bizarre, it wouldn't make the universe significantly MORE amazing if it turned out people possessed ESP or astrology was accurate; of course we all want the world to be magical, but it IS; it seems like every issue of "New Scientist" has at least three revelations more astounding than the ability to communicate telepathically. In fact, one of the pathetic aspects of most pseudoscience is that, even if it were true, it would be fairly bland compared to much of what we know for certain about nature. Anyway, am I right in assuming that there is no -- or virtually no -- convincing (or even significant) evidence for anything we think of as pseudoscience -- ghosts, ESP, UFO's, astrology, tea leaves, palmistry, remote viewing, pet psychics, plant emotions, Bigfoot, compassionate conservatism, a breath mint which is also a candy mint, North Dakota, Tom Cruise's heterosexuality, rumors of a so-called "microwave" oven that can cook food in mere minutes, etc.? I don't include alternative medical treatments and products, health foods and nutritional supplements, since this is such a huge category and it's hard to say what you'd define as "alternative." I also don't include meditation, biofeedback, etc. Joke items aside, I'm referring to the mainstream, traditional stuff -- primarily the supernatural, parapsychology and astrology/divination. I've of course heard at various times of studies with ostensibly dramatic results, but it seems like in every case I know of these results have been shown to be fraudulent, flawed, misinterpreted or unrepeatable. Indeed, are there still reputable scientists seriously pursuing the study of these subjects, or is there pretty much of a consensus that there's no solid scientfic evidence for any of this stuff, despite the persistence of often-compelling anecdotal data (like my friend's ghost experience)?

Incidentally, I read an article suggesting that one reason the public is skeptical of science is that so many people have had or know people who have had apparently paranormal experiences (or who have heard stories which they believe to be credible first- or second-hand reports of such experiences, although they may be at far greater remove than the teller realizes -- it's so tempting, merely for simplicity's sake, to attribute an experience to "a friend" when you mean "a friend of a friend"; in this way urban legends are often accepted as the credible personal account of an almost-acquaintance). These people believe they've seen or have certain knowledge of paranormal phenomena, and they can't understand why scientists are skeptical or dismissive ("I've seen a ghost; my brother has seen a ghost. What's wrong with scientists that they don't believe in ghosts?!")

Random anecdotal evidence is of course of extremely limited value to scientists. Eyewitness testimony, let alone hearsay, is inherently unreliable; a source may be inventing or embellishing his experience... if it even was HIS experience. His memory may be faulty; he may have been intoxicated or simply recalling a dream. What other explanations might there have been for what he saw or heard?

To the person telling the story, however, particularly if he witnessed the phenomenon firsthand, a paranormal experience is quite likely to be regarded as conclusive confirmation of the paranormal. You can hardly call this irrational, at least in many cases. If I were to be touring Hampton Court Palace outside London and happened to see a ghostly, translucent figure in 18th Century garb walking several feet above the level of the floor, and I wasn't informed immediately thereafter by Ed McMahon that I was being taped for an upcoming edition of "TV's Funniest Bloopers, Blunders and Practical Jokes," or I didn't run into a technician who explained that what I'd seen was a laser-generated hologram being tested for use that evening to scare the pants off David Hasselhof for an edition of "VH-1's Prank-the-Has-Been," or I didn't discover that my druggie traveling companion had slipped 600 mics of liquid mescaline into my Starbuck's vente iced non-fat latte... well, I very well might conclude I'd genuinely seen a ghost -- especially since (and this is true) my girlfriend once told me that she saw something along these lines herself on a visit to Hampton Court about 20 years ago.

To take a much less dramatic but entirely true experience, one evening a year or two ago I found myself -- for no apparent reason -- thinking about Bob Keeshan -- TV's beloved Captain Kangaroo. The next day it was on the news Bob Keeshan had died suddenly the night before. That was definitely a very striking coincidence... but I realize that it probably WAS a coincidence and not my picking up on some psychic vibe, because I'm aware that such a coincidence only seems amazing because we forget all the people we think of every day who DON'T kick off right around the time they pop into our heads. That fateful night when the Captain set sail for the Big Treasure House in the sky (where no doubt Mr. Greenjeans and Dancing Bear and Mr. Moose and Bunny Rabbit were waiting with a bottomless shaker of Manhattans, a steamer trunk full of pharmaceutical cocaine and of course the requisite 72 virgins), I might well have also thought of Harry Bellafonte, Alicia Silverstone, Ben Stein, F. Murray Abraham, Leeza Gibbons, the late Dan Blocker, Jay-Lo, Fred Flintstone, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Lucy Liu, Dandy Don Meredith, Buck Owens and Roy Clarke, the late Junior Samples, Katherine of Aragon, Grace Jones, Omar Bradley, the Bee-Gees, Joe Piscopo, Paul Lynde, Admiral Stockdale, Peter Tork, Lou Diamond Phillips, the Dixie Chicks, Frank Stallone, Lech Walesa, Wally Cox, Buzz Aldrin and the Aga Khan -- all of whom, if not dead already, would live through the night.

And yet, as I recall, there WAS a very singular quality to the way I thought of the Captain that night. I think maybe I suddenly woke up in the middle of the night, with him in my mind as if I'd been dreaming about him. I could very easily convince myself that there WAS something mystical to it...

What I'm getting at, although it's not true in my own case, is that I can understand how otherwise (fairly) rational people can have encounters, premonitions and other apparently supernatural experiences which convince them that paranormal phenomena either definitely exist or a very real possibility, based on their own experiences and/or the experiences they've heard about from people they trust.

Scientists, however, can prove nothing with such anecdotal experiences. There's no guarantee they even happened as reported, and what seem like impossible coincidences to persons experiencing them are often quite unremarkable, considered objectively. So I think it's perfectly understandable that some people conclude that there are ways of knowing other than science, or else that there's something the matter with scientists -- they claim there's no evidence for the supernatural, which, to those who believe they've experienced it and who know their experience is not unique, seems like utter nonsense.

I personally happen to be a skeptic when it comes to even my own personal experience, but this, I think, is unusual. Most people, if they think they see a ghost, they conclude they HAVE seen a ghost and thus that ghosts exist. By failing to acknowledge the existence of ghosts, therefore, science is revealing that it does not encompass all aspects of objective reality. Either science itself is flawed or limited by its rules, or scientists themselves are either blind or in denial of reality. Maybe there is even a conspiracy to suppress facts which, if acknowledged, would challenge the prejudices of the scientific worldview.

These are, I must emphasize, NOT my conclusions... but they ARE conclusions I can imagine people drawing -- not accurately, because they are largely grounded in a basic lack of understanding of the essential nature of science, but not entirely irrationally, either -- because if, like my friend, you are sure you have seen a ghost, the fact that science basically ignores ghosts (in a petty contemptuous way... as if believing in ghosts were the antithesis of the modern, scientific mindset) makes you question science's sacred objectivity

[BronzeDog]

Geeze, Peter, you sure took your time. ;)

Since I haven't read it all, I'll just pick out a few snippets to comment on:

And what if science -- as may or may not be the case with quantum physics -- leads us to places where objectivity breaks down? Science is predicated on the assumption that there is such a thing as objective truth, but it may be that "objective truth" is a concept that is only useful on a macroscopic scale

Objectivity doesn't break down at the quantum level. Human "common sense" breaks down. The quantum world is merely weird and probablistic, not subjective.

(Morality talk)

If we KNEW, we wouldn't have ethics debates. What we call morals are based on social instincts, and expanded on by experience. Killing is wrong because we consciously and/or unconsciously infer that killers shouldn't be trusted or helped. If you help a killer, he might eventually kill you. If you kill, you're not going to be trusted or helped.

This does not necessarily mean that we should endeavor to found a culture where a document like the Bible is generally considered valueless or even reduced to the same status as a novel -- we can't live without subjective values

I fail to see how reducing the Bible to a piece of fiction would eliminate subjective values. We're hard-wired with subjective values, and learn more of them from experience.