"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <da...@druid.net> writes: > On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:38:50 +0100 > "Alf P. Steinbach" <al...@start.no> wrote: > > However, although in this particular case the Ad Hominems > > constituted logical fallacies, not all Ad Hominems are logical > > fallacies. > > Yes they are. Using the reputation of someone to prove or disprove > their claims is a logical fallacy.
The trouble is, the bulk of statements Alf is calling “ad hominem attack” are, if one actually reads them, a criticism of his person. Not intended as a connecting claim in an argument, but a claim *distinct from* the argument Alf is engaged in. So they're *not intended* to prove or disprove the specific claims that immediately precede them. They're intended, at least partly, to provoke self-reflection on the part of the person criticised and, ideally, an improvement in behaviour. Failure to recognise a criticism as such, and instead repeatedly flinging the term “ad hominem” around as though it has any bearing, is an example of behaviour that could easily be improved, if only the person engaging in it would stop. -- \ “You've got to think about big things while you're doing small | `\ things, so that all the small things go in the right | _o__) direction.” —Alvin Toffler | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
