CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Ad Hominem [HD]
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 июл 2024
- In this video, Paul Henne (Duke University) describes the ad hominem fallacy, which is an informal fallacy that arises when someone attacks the person making the argument rather than their argument. He also describes the four subtypes of this fallacy.
Help us caption & translate this video!
amara.org/v/Fo66/
![CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Straw Man Fallacy [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hfil34ayaEU/mqdefault.jpg)
![CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5A7hSaoRv0g/mqdefault.jpg)
You spelled hypocrisy wrong; therefore, your argument is invalid.
James Files ad hominem route incoming!
Oh wait this is 3 years old
Exactly. I love when I’m arguing with someone on line and my autocorrect chooses the wrong spelling of “there” and they used that mistake (even if it was a direct spelling error on my part) as proof my conclusions are wrong
Pretty good video. I don’t know your political leanings and I can see you were trying to make the video neutral so as to not distract the viewer from its overall point, but I think a controversial topic would have drove the point home better.
For example: a pro-life person says, “abortion is wrong because it takes a human life and is therefore murder.” A pro choice person says, “it’s interesting how pro-life people (usually Republicans) want to take away a woman’s right to choose, but don’t want to provide her with the social welfare programs she’ll need to raise it.”
This seems like a classic and very common example of an ad hominem argument. Regardless, of how a person feels about abortion, this argument does not directly counter or address the claim that abortion takes a human life.
Your thoughts?
Marc Johnson hi 👋🏽 I think the example you have given is definitely a fallacy ( and this is coming from a pro-choice person who finds it irritating when other people-choice people make this point!) but I think it’s a straw man fallacy as the pro-choice person is attacking an argument that the pro-like person didn’t even make.
El M thank you for the respectful reply. I like it when people who disagree on major issues can have civilized conversations, especially on line! Yes, indeed! You are right and I stand corrected! This is more of a strawmen tactic than ad homoin. I think I originally felt it was AH because you’re essentially attacking the person, calling them a hypocrite, but yes, you’re right. This fits the definition of straw man far better...
The non-use of Critical Thinking / Logic is actually the biggest problem on the planet.
E Edo I strongly agree and wish others did too.
Even if we all disagree on other things, it would be alot simpler if most people agreed on this one thing.
E Edo Yes you are correct the lack of critical thinking /logic and intellectual honesty is the biggest problem on the earth. Imo there are too many beliefs which stops progression so we stagnate. Because once you believe something you stop looking further and when someone shows you proof/evidence that goes against your beliefs your cognitive dissonance kicks in
Nah i use this lesson to attack and bully people on debate. Or use this to win debate with fallacy argument
It's because most of the world is uneducated and don't have access to education(which in some countries, is by design), so they don't have a solid foundation upon which to base their judgments to begin with. That's why spreading education and buildings schools around the world should be a collective priority.
I dont't think so because you're a dumbass
It's worth adding that the oposite scenario is also possible (even though i rarely see it mentioned). "Ad hominem" simply means "directed at the person (in question)", and that can be both in a bad or good way. Both constitute a fallacy.
If Brad makes a claim and i step in to say that "Brad is an awesome guy", that in no way should influence anyone into taking Brad's claim seriously, although many times it does.
Yeah but but Jimmy guys that take photos of themselves with no shirt on are untrustworthy!
in most cases this is an authority fallacy
+quint0sh My slave is an awesome guy?
Well thats how world works
Indeed!
Please make videos about all logical fallacies! I beg you!
there are videos about more fallacies in the channel. you can find the playlist
yeah and next evil person reference, try using Stalin.
Time to get educated, Reddit!
Can you shorten this to 2 sentences, in big words, plastered on top of a picture? My reddit-sized attention span is too short to comfortably watch this.
Reddit is even worse now. The top-rated argumentative posts rely on ad hominem far more often than not.
And Twitter tbh
one of the reasons i feel like i'm losing my mind, all the time, is that in the spirit of self-improvement i decided to read up on critical thinking whereas so much public discourse completely ignores the rules. for instance, it is extremely common to critique what someone says based on who they are instead of what they are saying; at times it feels like that's all Twitter is!
Lol, well you just summed up the root cause of why arguments on the Internet are such failures...Good thing I learned all these lessons _(100% sound)_ many decades ago before the Internet! But yes, thank you for posting it all the same as it is very needed!
TZO2K15 ? These fallacies are just as prevalent in conversations outside the internet.
I don't see why a conversation taking place on the internet in some form would make it more prone to fallacies.
Lmaooo
Interesting that the word "bombastic" is in itself bombastic. Autological is the term, I believe.
ooooohoooooh
Almost onomatopoeic
It's hard for me to believe this has to be explained, I always thought people did it because they got caught with their pants down.
As in, "Earth is the best planet"
A logical counter is "Do you know about every other planet?"
"Shut up, you're stupid".
I just figured people realized at that point that they had no basis for their beliefs/statements, but had too much pride to say they were wrong.
Some people, if not most identify with their beliefs 😉 by not agreing they feel personally attacked.
They call me Mr. Bombastic.
Something fantastic!
the fact we need a video to explain that personal standing doesn't change the validity of the argument makes me worry about what people are being taught these days.
Peter Waters I was thinking the same thing. All of this seemed pretty obvious. :/
It's completely obvious, but also probably the most commonly used bad argument.
I didn't learn about fallacies until sophomore year of college. Not saying I hadn't come to some conclusions on my own, but still, it was never discussed with me.
Philosophy is sometimes about dissociating oneself from common knowledge and trying to examine "common sense" to understand why people think the way we do.
It's also important to remember that understanding a fallacy on some level does not necessarily make one impervious to that fallacy. This fallacy is, in a sense, an appeal to emotion, and emotions can be tricky little things that influence our views against our will and without our knowledge.
Never think that you've surpassed the value of a lesson. Nobody's impervious to fault, even very simple faults.
Indeed, this is just common sense.
The term bombastic sounds bombastic.
From Schopenhauer himself: "A last trick is to become personal, insulting, rude, as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand, and that you are going to come off worst. It consists in passing from the subject of dispute, as from a lost game, to the disputant himself, and in some way attacking his person. It may be called the argumentum ad personam, to distinguish it from the argumentum ad hominem, which passes from the objective discussion of the subject pure and simple to the statements or admissions which your opponent has made in regard to it. "
What youre talking about is NOT an ad hominem but rather an ad personam.
Wow who would have thought that calling someone and a group of people a bunch of idiots would backfire in a certain election?
This is a great video! I only knew ad hominem arguments to be of the abusive sub-type. I was not aware that ignoring someone's argument because they may have a conflict of interest, may be a hypocrite, or may share the same opinion as an unlikeable person, constituted as ad hominem arguments as well. Thank you!
Thanks for the great video Paul.
Thanks!
I feel like it's a joke that we have to call these occurrences "ad hominem" attacks, because every single time I try to point out that someone is doing it, they get their under all twisted in knots because they don't understand what it means and think I'm just trying to talk down to them. Of course, they also don't take the time to understand what it means. I find it hard to introduce any of my different viewpoints to about 99.99% of people due to this very thing. The US media is rife with the education that "to attack those who don't follow the mainstream teachings or ways of doing things is cool---attack them mercilessly."
What percentage of the population do you think relies on these ad hominem tactics when communicating with others? How often do you think the average person does these things?
I think it is too common.
jeremy robinsonartist 100%, because none of us are Spock(and even Spock held some illogical positions IMO)
Attacking character to win an argument.
I frequently use the hypocrisy angle when arguing with my boyfriend.
Him: Why didn't you do the dishes, or vacuum the floor?
Me: Yeah well, you didn't do the laundry or take out the rubbish!
good video, thanks to All involved for making and sharing it
Thanks! Really appreciate that. Comments like these keep us going!
I'd like to know what fonts are used in these videos? They're great!
The guy making this video seems like a total dweeb. I am therefore not listening to a word he says/
Dane Spacey seems like a total dweeb. I am therefore not listening to a word he says//
Ad hominem ad infinitum.
I seem like a total dweeb, you should therefore not listen to a word I say///
Riddle me that... or don't.
Montaux Sorry, I wasn't listening. Did you just say something? ;)
Dane Spacey you're a total Jerk so your argument is invalid.
I think every TV debate should have an umpire to flag logical fallacy
What are the cases in which one's standing is relevant to the argument? Is this like "I'm not a bad person"?
At 5:01, premise 2 is the same as the conclusion. Perhaps it should read, "Killing sentient beings for food is immoral."
Great Video, I discovered this fallacy a couple years ago when I realised it is to my disadvantage to distrust a persons argument just because I don´t like that person. I am interested as to behaivioral ideas when you face abusive use of this fallacy and a third party falling for it. Do you play the dirty game? probably a questions of morality...
i bet his fellow classmates named vlad and catherine were pissed after seeing this.
what abt in the legal courtroom where they try to discredit the witness on basis of questionable reputation..like those potrayed in movies. In other words what place does 'ad hominem' have in law?
I'm not a lawyer, but I would guess that the inferences people draw from witness statements take the form 'Witness A is credible, so what he says must be true' -- in which case discrediting them is simply negating the premise, making the argument unsound. IMV it's not fallacious to attack someone's credibility as a refutation of an argument *from* credibility.
Hey man. I liked the video but it would have been helpful to have an intro and or summary where you list all four ad hominems on the same page.
Wasn't this article in last month's edition of Duh Magazine?
Boxes, you gotta love them
Well done! Thank you.
Hi guys, i have one question. If i give a argument:"You are not moral person, and he replies:"Yes, but neither are you,,. Is that fallacy?
I feel a lot of "social justice warriors" need to brush up on these fallacy in particular.
Fantastic video by the way!
Hey, is it also ad hominem if persona B criticizes persona A for the way he said his argument ( maybe in an rude way or with slightly insulting Word choices) instead of responding to the content of the argument
Yes. Always argue the point made never attack the person. When you attack the person, you’ve already lost.
Is guilt by association a non sequitur generally?
Great video! Short and east to understand yet tons of knowledge. Subscirbed!
Your comment seems to have gone south. No hominem. :)
Phoenix33 Nice name
Funniest fallacy to come out of this is the 'fallacy fallacy' where you just point out their fallacy where they otherwise would have a sound argument.
Super helpful !! Thank you !
Doesn't this phrase come from a Roman court case on corruption taken by Cato and defended by Cicero. Cicero had no arguments in the case therefore he made personal attacks against Cato and actually won the case. I might be wrong but I think this is where the phrase originates
I had no idea there was more than one kind. That was very interesting and informative.
Usually they are recognized as their own form of fallacy, the names were even given in this video, but when you look at it, they do more or less all fall under the umbrella of Ad-Hominem.
Ad hominem arguments do make sense, when the main argument of the opponent is his personal experience, or his personal traits.
So if the premise is his traits, then you are also technically attacking the premise. Therefore it's not a fallacy.
+Wireless Philosophy, @5:35 , in regards to tu quoque, can a human *truly* hold a moral value without also practicing it? Of course, the argument is the crux of the debate, but how do we judge the truth of someone if they don't follow what they say?
@7:49 you mention another video will touch on when a persons' standing and character are relevant to an argument. I'd like to know more. We are such complex energy balls whom many are "hypocrites" one might say in the average daily activity. So hmm, I'll have to watch you're next video and read more to figure out if that with all these complexities humans can *truly* hold moral values.
This means you won the argument. Congratulations!
Man, ( insert group of people you disagree with) really needs to see this video!
Great video.
Good video. An issue arises when the argument becomes connected with some aspect of their character, that you may be ambiguously describing (as a "total jerk"). Say Vlad is arguing that he should get a cat. But you've personally witnessed expressions of his mentality towards cats, and have seen him abuse and not properly care for them. Communicating your concept of that aspect of his mentality with "total jerk" is indescript, but not necessarily irrelevant.
I thought it was Latin for "add hominy" to a particular soup or dish.
but let say if tu quoque is true then isn't it true that catherine herself commits a fallacy ? she doesn't practice what she is preaching
Spread this like wild fire everywhere!!!
This is my favorite form of fallacy. It works every time 👉
We encounter it very often, just like the equivocation fallacy.
Why in the world would anyone give this a thumbs down?
I didnt know how the term was called but I experienced it numerous time in life coming from my abusive parents the moment they start losing the argument and start to lose control of the debate just like trump did the last years. when an argument goes way over their head they dismiss it completly and use abuse against their opponent to prove their value when in fact they are the insecure of their truth. the cliche of a loser.
Thanks, very clear!
Can anyone think of any politicians who use this argument?
im having 5 days to my exams..why didnt i discover this channel b4?????
Some Filipinos are really good in AD HOMINEM and they were on an expert level unexpectedly
Omsim! Toxic Filipino culture na nga. Hopefully di na manahin ito ng susunod na henerasyon
@@evilyugi2 I felt pity on our Filipino youth and children kasi maabsorb nila itong mentality
Thank you!
I would say that conflict of interest and hypocrisy is valid depending on the nature of the discussion. If you are having a general discussion with Catherine about the morality of killing/eating a sentient being, then it is not valid. But if Catherine is trying to convince you to become a vegan, then they are absolutely valid.
good stuff.
Someone: Hypocrite!
Hypocrite: Listen to my words. WORDS!
WOOOOOORRRRRDDDSS!!...
maybe we generally shouldn't relate arguments to the person who says them and we shouldn't derive everything from one fact, at least in most cases
thank you! it helps
I USE THESE ALL THE TIME OMG I FEEL GUILTY
Thanks Paul I've heard this word and thought it was some sort of bean.
nom nom
I like this guy he is really good.
Ad hominems seem to work great in the dating world. Probably because it adds flare and causes the senses to perk up by strumming the strings of the emotional guitar and gives character to the exchange
for further examples of ad-hominem please scroll down on Facebook comments on any given contentious issue of choice, you're welcome :)
lastima los subtítulos en español
Sadly I've been accused of ad-hominem use, and no one seems to understand it. All because I've used the word "you" in a sentence, and they take that as ad-hominem. Whilst I was saying "You thought process (which is the subject matter) could be interpreted as invalid because of x". Them then saying then I'm attacking them with an ad-hominem, completely ignoring my "x", the argument. They then claim that I should not use the word "you". I think there's a lot of education needed in grammar (seeking out the subject in a sentence) and then what logical fallacies are. Because sadly, most people accusing you of ad-hominem are in my biased and of course anecdotal evidence the ones who do it themselves.
Isn't Catherine biased, therefore her conclusion is unreliable?
Nice video, but I spotted a huge problem.
At 5:40, you wrote "hypocircy" instead of "hypocricy".
It's late but *hypocrisy
Ad Hominem is nothing more than a fancy word used to defend hypocrisy or conflict of interest. Just as an example, when a man who lives in a fortress tells you you have to accept all illegal immigrants it is perfectly fine to attack that person's hypocrisy and double standard. If an executive of McDonald's tells you fast food is completely healthy it is perfectly fine to be skeptical due to his/her conflict of interest. In the court of law an alibi from a relative of the defendant is always discounted, was it an Ad Hominem too when Cochran attacked Fuhrman for being a racist? hey just because Fuhrman was a racist didn't mean he planted evidence to frame OJ.
in your first example, it's okay to argue that the man in the fortress is a hypocrite, but, if you argue because he's a hypocrite that letting in illegal immigrants isn't okay, there entails ad homonin.
+james roper basically, even if someone is unjustified in a belief, that doesn't mean they're wrong
james roper
There is no right or wrong but asking others to do things even you don't/can't practice is hypocrisy and your opinion means nothing in that case. nothing shows how unreasonable and unrealistic an ideology is when even its most hardcore advocates can't achieve it.
That is why the liberals love to condemn known devout Christians when they do things against what they preach like Palin's daughter or Josh Duggar. Does showing people a few corrupted Christians proves Christians are all bad? No, but the left loves to do that.
The man might live in the fortress for a reason that doesn't involve illegal immigrants. Maybe he's afraid of zombie apocalypses, the government, or his paranoid neighbor Jeff, but is willing to share his fortress with a family of illegals.
foxymetroid
The simplest explanation is that the man living in a fortress is afraid of sharing his home and belongings with strangers and would like some privacy and live with his loved one only, he doesn't want his children to be exposed to the potential dangerous associated with people with unknown origins, but he is advocating Americans and Europeans to share our home with everyone else in the world.
Awesome!
Excellent
Very Good
if fallacies are not effective when counter arguing someones position why do so many people use them on purpose? politicians still are able to influence mass population of voters using these tactics and still get the results they want such as rising in polls or deflecting inquiries that may paint their image in a bad light, it seems if you are in a stronger position of power for example a teacher who can influence the grade of a student or a preacher/politician who has a strong influence over a community still use fallacies when spreading certain
ideologies and still acquire the results that they desire.
because being right is more important than doing the right thing. Being right is more important that being truthful. And maintaining the moral high ground is more important than being humble in defeat.
Can Ad hominem arguments ever be considered valid- say the appropriate context and information is given?
Brilliant.
A better Ad Hominem attack on Vlad would have been: "Yeah well, you're lazy." Thereby not only attacking him but, also anyone else who tries to use the same argument. :-)
Actually, A betterbad hominem would be to say "Yeah, well, you're stupid"
Very interesting, the media works with these types of attacks
The problem with the ad hominem fallacy is that people tend to misuse it a lot. If they think their opponent's argument is an insult, they label it an ad hominem argument (even if it isn't). I believe people need to at least have a basic understanding of the ad hominem fallacy before they label arguments (that they think insult them) as ad hominem arguments.
laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html
I was gonna say this. It isn't an ad hominem to call your opponent a dumbass (even though it's incredibly rude and unprofessional jargon), nor is it to call someone out based on little to no credibility on the argued topic.
Wow you're pretty! And smart. Thanks for the video!
Of course, people often make or depend on their audience making implicit arguments from credibility to justify their explicitly stated premises of their explicit argument. In which case it can be worth attacking their credibility to undermine those premises.
I just told an old Lady that she's one fart away from hell and she said that what i did was ad hominem... So here i am
Good video bro.
People use circumstantial all the time when talking about climate change. Do often I see people dismiss Al Gore (and other environmentalists) because he invests in alternative energy. They see it as conflict of interest, but do nothing to address the research he presents in support of his position.
Don't put both videos in the same playlist.
how to tell people that they're commiting a fallacy? like not everyone know about fallacies
+Marvel Hasiholan You'd better not if they are not willing to listen. Recognizing fallacies are tools for personal assessment of arguments. Many people might agree or not agree with your tools of assessing arguments. I know many (including myself) otherwise intelligent people who hold some stupid beliefs in certain circumstances. They don't want to assess their beliefs in that circumstance the way they normally assess their beliefs. Just spot the fallacy and move on. And stop taking them seriously on that special point. If they asked why you got detached explain to them the fallacy that you spotted.
why didn't you use Stalin instead of Hitler?
Aren't the examples with vegan catherine also a strawman fallacies?
heartbreaking: the worst person you know just made a great point
Paul
Thanks mate
the standing of the person shouldnt be taken into account, but what about the persons credibility and position, why shouldnt we take a doctors opinion over a normal persons because dont they have better knowledge about the subject?
boy i sure hat vlad and Catherine....lol
the most common one on the internet that is ad hominem is attacking peoples spelling/grammar.
it does not matter if your talking about math and science or history somehow spelling is the important part so if you misspell one word they ignore everything you say and say your an idiot for not spelling that word right.
Yes, this video perfectly describes youtube comments. "You look like a 12 year old because you made a typo and did not use a word longer than 13 letters so you are wrong."
You're oversimplifying the issue. Grammar is important everywhere. Whether you want to abide by that rule or not, because you think it's nonsensical and, or, unfair, has nothing to do with the fact that it is a rule. Yes, it's something people arbitrarily decided, but don't forget people also arbitrarily decided that killing others was bad. Good grammar will make you look better, whether it's in a job application, a school essay, or even a dumb youtube comment. That's the world we live in. Accept it and move on.
Did you just fixed the Internet? Good job!
Basically, the best way to represent the Ad Hominem fallacy is to bring up the eternal argument of cats vs. dogs.
stuff like this should be thought in school