|
[[Image:Latorre01.jpg|thumb|250px|'''Vice Admiral Juan José Latorre''']]
I had minor objections to the following as examples:
'''Juan José Latorre Benavente''' ([[Santiago de Chile|Santiago]]; [[March 24]], [[1846]] - [[July 9]], [[1912]]) Chilean Vice Admiral, one of the principal actors of the [[War of the Pacific]], and hero of the [[Battle of Angamos]].
==Early life==
:An ''ad hominem'' attack might go "Congressman Lieberman is a Jew. Don't trust him to preside over the banking committee."
Son of Elías Latorre and of Nicomedia Benavente, the oldest of eight brothers. After the early death of his father, three of his younger brothers were taken by the paternal family in [[Peru]], where they were raised. Later on, one of the brothers participated also in the [[War of the Pacific]], but on the Peruvian side.
At the age of nine, in [[1855]], he won a scholarship to the Naval Academy. Appointed midshipman on [[July 15]], [[1861]]. He served on the ''Esmeralda'' during the [[Chincha Islands War]] and participated in the [[Battle of Papudo]], where the Spanish shooner ''Covadonga'' was captured, and in the [[Battle of Abtao]].
Cmon, we don't need even to ''mention'' anti-Semitism to illustrate the point.
On [[February 12]], [[1873]] was promoted to first lieutenant, and given command of the ''Toltén'' first, and the ''Magallanes'' later. It was in this later ship that he was going to make his name as one of the ablest naval commanders of the coming war. During his patrols of the extreme southern region of Chile, he was involved in a diplomatic incident with [[Argentina]] and Britain, when he captured several foreign ships that were operating in the Chilean area with an Argentinian licence, chief among them the ''Jeanne Amelie'' and the ''Devonshire''. He was also faced with the mutiny of the city of [[Punta Arenas]], where he was able to rescue his old friend, governor [[Diego Dublé Almeida]].
:An ad hominem persuasion might be "How can you believe Johnson stole that money, he's a fellow Mason."
== War of the Pacific years ==
I confess I don't see how this is an example of ''argumentum ad hominem.'' It resembles the circumstantial variety, but it isn't an attempt to discredit one's opponent. Maybe there's something called "ad hominem persuasion" that the article should explicitly describe, but I'd need to see evidence of such a thing.
===Naval Battle de Chipana===
:A defensive argument could be "Of course you believe [[Anita Hill]], you're a woman."
While in command of the ''Magallanes'', he was the first to come face to face with the Peruvian navy at the [[Battle of Chipana|Naval Battle de Chipana]]. On [[April 12]], [[1879]], he crossed paths with the Peruvian ships ''Unión'' and ''Pilcomayo'', who tried to capture it. Outgunned, Latorre decided to escape. During the ensuing persecution, he noticed that the speed of the two Peruvian ships was greatly different, and that the ''Pilcomayo'' was falling considerably behind.
Once the Peruvian ''Union'' was alone, he turned his ship around, and opened fire. The battle thus ensued. The Peruvian aim was disastrous, due to their lack of training, but the Chilean aim was only marginally better. At one point, the ''Unión'' started spewing white smoke from one of its sides. This led the Peruvian captain to think his ship had been seriously hit, and gave up the persecution, allowing the weaker ''Magallanes'' to escape unharmed. In fact the whole incident was caused by the overheating of one of the boilers.
Again, let's not go there. ;-)
===Second Naval Battle of Iquique===
--[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]]
After the disastrous reduction of the Peruvian navy at the First [[Battle of Iquique|Naval Battle of Iquique]], presidente [[Mariano Ignacio Prado|Prado]] of Peru ordered Admiral [[Miguel Grau|Grau]] to harass the Chilean shipping lines and to try to disrupt their commerce. The Admiral, on the ''Huascar'', decided to go on a night raid to the port of [[Iquique]], to try and destroy the ''Abtao''. He arrived on the night of [[July 9]], and not finding his prey decided to go after the transport ship ''Matías Cousiño.''
Latorre, who was commanding the ''Magallanes'' decided to fend off the attack, in spite of the difference in strength of both ships (260 tons versus 1130). Admiral Grau tried to sink the smaller ship thrice, using his ram, but in spite of his ability the ''Magallanes'' was able to keep him at bay long enough for the ironclad ''Cochrane'' to show up, after which the ''Huascar'' decided to retreat back to [[Arica]].
Sorry about the italics, Larry, it just seemed overitalicized to me. I see your point, however. [[User:Stormwriter|Stormwriter]]
=== [[Battle of Angamos|Naval Battle of Angamos]] ===
No problem of course, I appreciate someone who is concerned about overitalicization. ;-) --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]]
[[Image:Angamos.jpg|thumb|300px|[[Battle of Angamos|Naval Battle of Angamos]]]]
On [[September 6]], [[1879]] he is promoted to commander of the ironclad ''Cochrane'', the strongest unit of the Chilean fleet. His fame was such that he moved in with all his crew. His first mission was to eliminate the threat of the ''Huascar'', who was impeding alone any invasion of the Peruvian coastline.
On the night of [[October 7]] he was informed that the ''Huascar'' had been seen near the port of Huasco and was moving north. A trap was then set. The Chilean fleet was divided into 2 groups. The first division was in charge of Commander [[Galvarino Riveros]] and made up of the ''Blanco Encalada'', ''Covadonga'' and the ''Matías Cousiño'' (the last one loaded with coal), who would try to follow Admiral Grau pushing him towards the second division that would be waiting further north. In the early hours of [[October 8]], the plan went into effect. When the ''Huascar'' and the ''Union'' saw the Chilean ships blocking their way south they decided to turn back north. A few hours later, they met the ''Cochrane'' who was waiting according to plan. Admiral Grau was forced to present battle, while the ''Union'' got away.
I don't want to be overly negative, but this article is wildly inaccurate. Firstly "argumentum ad hominem" doesn't mean "argument against the man" but "argument to the man" (the original sense was flattery). "pro hominem" is hopeless: firstly "pro" takes the ablative, so this should be "pro homine", but anyway this type of argument is called "argumentum ad verecundiam" (literally, "argument to shame", used to refer to an appeal to authority). Where is this stuff coming from? --[[User:John Kozak|JohnKozak]]
The ''Cochrane'' continued advancing over the ''Huascar'' without answering its fire until it was very close to the enemy, in order not to lose speed. When it finally attacked, the onslaught was ferocious. The second shot destroyed the command tower of the ''Huascar'', killing Admiral [[Miguel Grau Seminario|Grau]] and leaving the monitor without a rudder. The fight continued for another hour, but the arrival of the ''Blanco Encalada'' with the rest of the Chilean fleet made any resistance totally useless. The ''Huascar'' was captured and became a part of the Chilean fleet.
: I've never heard of "pro hominem" either. As far as I understand "ad hominem" means to the man, not necessarily positive or negative, as the above poster suggested. Though I see the point in mentioning that ad hominems can actually be positive and are not necessarily personal attacks, pulling some term out of thin air for it is not the right way to go about it. --[[User:Taak|Taak]] 04:11, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
== Later years ==
----
After returning to Chile, in [[1882]] he married Julia Moreno Zuleta, whom he met on one of the many parties given in his honor after the war. They had three children. On [[June 5]], [[1884]] he is promoted to Rear-Admiral. In [[1886]] he was appointed Commander General of the Navy. Presidente [[José Manuel Balmaceda]] sent him on an official mission to Europe to supervise the construction of new ships for the Chilean navy. While in [[England]], the [[Chilean Civil War]] broke out. He chose to remain loyal to president Balmaceda and was dismissed after the Congressional triumph. He remained in exile in Europe until [[1894]].
After his return, he was twice elected senator for the Balmacedista party ([[1894]]-[[1900]], [[1900]]-[[1906]]), and was reinstated in the navy. He was appointed member of the Council of State by president [[Federico Errázuriz Echaurren]] in [[1897]] and minister of foreign affairs in [[1898]]. A few years before his death he was promoted to Vice Admiral and was made a Commander of the French [[Legion of Honor]].
I was thinking of adding a couple of paragraphs about valid uses of ad hominem. Something like:
{{start box}}
:Using the ''ad hominem'' form of argument is acceptable when it is impossible test the truth or falsity of some of an arguer's claims. In other words, the ad hominem attack is a logically valid form when "We can trust the arguer" is one of the necessary premisses of the argument being criticized.
{{s-off}}
{{succession box
| title=[[Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile#Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Cult|Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cult]]
| before=[[Raimundo Silva]]
| after=[[Ventura Blanco]]
| years='''1898-1899'''}}
{{s-mil}}
{{succession box
| title=[[Chilean Navy|Navy General Commander]]
| before=[[Domingo Toro]]
| after=[[Luis Uribe]]
| years='''1886-1887'''}}
{{end box}}
[[Category:1846 births|Latorre, Juan José]]
:For example:
[[Category:1912 deaths|Latorre, Juan José]]
[[Category:Chilean military personnel|Latorre, Juan José]]
:: "Prof. Bainbridge collected evidence in favor of theory X. However, Bainbridge has been proven to falsify his evidence in the past, so I don't think the evidence he's collected this time ought to lend much support to theory X."
[[Category:Chilean admirals|Latorre, Juan José]]
[[Category:People of the War of the Pacific|Latorre, Juan José]]
:When it is merely impractical but not impossible to verify a particular premise of an argument like this, then it may be ''rational'' but not ''logical'' to accept an ad hominem argument.
What do you guys think? --[[User:Taak|Taak]] 22:58, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
:It's situational. How probable is it that Bainbridge has falsified evidence this time? Is it certain? Is it merely possible? What is at stake? etc.
:The statement (I've inserted quotes) without qualification is ''ad hominem''. The rationality of rejecting his evidence is influenced by the following statements: "We don't have time (or ability) to check his evidence and there is a good chance he is lying this time." "Bainbridge has been proven to falsify his evidence in the past and we've got time, let's look carefully to see if he has falsified evidence in this case." etc.
:On a related topic, is there a ''pro hominem'' fallacy, where you accept someone's argument because of who they are, without reference or in spite of the facts? --[[User:M4-10|M4-10]] 22:57, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
I've been thinking about ''ad hominem'' a bit and I'm not entirely satisfied with how it is presented. I'm not an expert in logic, and I know ad hominem is well documented. Therefore I'm not willing to make an edit at this time (I may later).
What is itching me is that I think ''ad hominem'' should '''only be applied to arguments, and not evidence'''. Evidence is an issue of credibility, and it is not a fallacy to reject evidence based on someone's lack of credibility if there is no way to prove it otherwise.
So: "John has frequently lied under oath, and therefore can't be trusted when he says he wasn't at the murder scene."
This would (under my definition) '''not''' be ''ad hominem'' because John has not given an argument, only (uncredible) evidence. Further, the speaker is making a full argument, with evidence ("John frequently lied under oath") leading to deductive reasoning ("therefore can't be trusted"). The above example ''may'' be a [[personal attack]].
What is ''ad hominem'' then? Rejecting not evidence, but reason, based on the source of that reason.
"Ravens aren't pink because Bob says they are pink and Bob is blind."
Ravens aren't pink, but the reason they aren't pink is not because Bob is blind. The evidence is Bob's blindness, which can be true or false. But whether true or false, the argument is ''ad hominem'' fallacy.
The ''pro hominem'' fallacy can be illustrated by this example:
"Ravens are black because Bob says they are black and Bob is very smart."
Again, the evidence ("Bob is very smart") may be true or false, but the ''reason'' cited is fallacious ("Ravens are black because Bob says they are black.") --[[User:M4-10|M4-10]] 07:20, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
Looking closer at the article, it more or less says what I said but the examples aren't very good.
"George W. Bush is a Republican; therefore, the argument he just gave is wrong."
"Another example is the rejection of a politician's proposal for health care reform simply because the politician "has never been sick a day in his life"."
"I obviously don't need to reply to Jones's arguments about creationism; everyone knows that he's a convicted felon."
"You needn't bother to listen to the trial arguments of the tobacco companies; after all, they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests."
:All of these would be better served with actual arguments cited.
"You claim to be a fundamentalist Christian yet you support gay rights."
:This one isn't an argument, it's just a statement.
Having gone through this mental exercise (thanks for reading!) I guess I can rightfully make some edits after all. Any logic masters can feel free to correct or augment me.
First of all - I'm sorry for my English, its not my mother language and I'm not very skilled in using it. Now, I think the valid case is not explained well. It just gives examples, saying '''when'''without really explaining '''why'''. The way I see it - the "truth" of claims is meaningless without being related to the properties of people. What we really say by "of course he'd say A - he is X" ("A" = claim, "X" = some property) - is that since most of the public is not X, and since A is true for X - then there is a large probability that A is not universally true for most of the public, and therefore our ad hominem claim (against A) is valid. In other words it relates to the probability of A being true, by showing that since A is true for some people even if its not "universally" true ("univarsally" being "true for most") - then there is a larger probability that A is not true (universally).
What do you think?
==Tu quoque==
Is there anything to be written about the legal relevance of the tu quoque argument? [[Nuremberg Trials]] mentioned that the argument was "removed" but to me it seems as if no law could accept it. [[User:Get-back-world-respect|Get-back-world-respect]] 22:51, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Would the infamous retort "it takes one to know one" fall under this category of fallacy? --[[User:Aspen Mayer|aspen]] 20:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
==Ad Hominem quiz for freshman writing classes==
1. Is it an ad hominem fallacy to discredit a minister's argument about marriage on the grounds that he has never been married?<br>
a. True<br>
b. False<br>
<br>
2. What is the literal translation of the Latin term ''Ad Hominem''?<br>
a. Against the man<br>
b. Against the arguer<br>
c. Contextless apeal that sound the same but has a different spelling.<br>
d. Contextless apeal that sound the same but has a different meaning.<br>
<br>
3. It still an ad hominem fallacy bring up some ones objectionable characteristics even when arguing over his qualifications for a task?<br>
a. True, there is no pretence of rationality in logic.<br>
b. True, a patter in a series is not a reasonable and suffichant basis for future events.<br>
c. False, fallacies only apply to the clames of an argument not the argument it self.<br>
d. False, people should be accountable for there past.<br>
<br>
4. How is Ad hominem different than non-sequitor?<br>
a. Every Ad Hominum is also a Non-sequitor, but not all Non-sequitor are Ad Hominum.<br>
b. Ad Hominum is an illogical step between an arguer's undesirable traits and an arguer's clame, while non-sequitor is, specifically, unrelated statements put together quickly as to go unnoticed.<br>
c. There is a lot of overlap. The type of fallacy a statement may be is purely a madder of argument for a person wishing to refute it.<br>
d. The difference is completely semantic.<br>
<br>
5. If two researchers have different results for the same experiment it is an ad hominem fallacy to assume
the one from the less prestigious institute used sloppy methods?<br>
a. False, It would be an unreliable source fallacy to assume both used correct methods.<br>
b. False, ad hominum only applies to people not institutions.<br>
c. True, assumptions based on factors, other than the research documentation, causes a self perpetuating cycle of scientific stagnation.<br>
d. True, but only amongst researchers. If the statement was made by a person with no ability to judge the research, it would not be an ad hominum fallacy.<br>
== Article contains too much incorrect information ==
I'm going to rewrite large portions of this article some time soon because the authors who wrote them don't understand what ad hominem means. If there are any objections to this, please voice them here. There is a very common misconception going around, that ad hominem is simply an attack against the person you're arguing with, but that is not necessarily the case. Likewise, an 'attack' doesn't have to be name-calling or anything like that. It could simply be something like "you are wrong because you don't have a PhD in the subject."
There is a very important distinction that some, but not all parts of the article make between to types of attacks.
'''Ad hominem attack''': "Your argument is wrong because of [something about the person they are arguing with]."
*"That piece of evidence may be true, but how could you possibly be right, you don't have any kind of degree or certification in this area."
*"There's no way he could be right about this area of quantum physics, the guy dances around naked in his house!"
'''Non-ad hominem attack''': "You're such a(n) [disparaging remark]. You are wrong because of [insert reasoning unrelated to the person]."
*"These statistics from this highly credible polling agency clearly show that you're wrong about the prevelance of it. Why am I even arguing with this idiot? I should really learn to stop arguing with someone who couldn't even get a GED."
*"That's it, you're too stupid to argue with, bye."
*"Here's a comprehensive study showing why you're wrong. In the future I suggest that you take some courses in this before arguing about it."
See the distinction? If there's any confusion, I can clarify further.
Please note that there is an exception of sorts, if the person you're arguing with IS the subject of the argument, then you can attack the characteristics of the person which are relevent to the argument. Although I'm not sure if that's really an exception or just not considered ad hominem to begin with. It depends if you define ad hominem as "attacking the person as a basis for your argument" OR "attacking the persno as a basis for your argument in place of attacking their argument." The latter definition has the exception built-in, since you'd be attacking the person in addition to (not in place of) their argument.
[[User:Njyoder|Nathan J. Yoder]] 6 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)
== Inverted Ad Hominen is non-notable ==
When I correct the ad hominem article later, I'm zapping the 'inverted ad hominem' term. It is completely non-notable (86 hits in google) and was invented and inserted into the article by [[User:Layman]]. Heck, the article itself even attributes it to Layman, a random web user, as having said it.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ad_hominem&diff=8251508&oldid=8229112 Original edit inserting it under an ip address]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ad_hominem&diff=8254569&oldid=8251508 Edit by User:Layman the same day]
There's a reason why the term wasn't invented by logicians too, because "inverted ad hominem" is still ad hominem. There's no "inverse" about it. The so-called "inverse ad hominem" is just a case of ad hominem where someone says "my qualifications are better than yours" instead of directly saying "your qualifications suck." The meaning is the same and there is no reason for another term.
I really don't think there is any question that this and the silly thing about it being coined should be removed.
[[User:Njyoder|Nathan J. Yoder]] 6 July 2005 17:19 (UTC)
=== "random"? ===
It is true that I violated the neutrality principle in this case. It is also true that I have made my self-interest in this matter obvious. I have the deepest respect for the principle and for the Wikimedia project generally. Informal Logic is the only place I would be prepared to do so. My reasons and justifications for doing so are clearly expressed by the very content I have contributed. I believe this embedded self-reference makes the subject truly engaging and as such is aligned to the philosophic aims of Wikimedia.
I maintain that the relationship between Ad Hominem and Appeal to Authority is significant and somewhat enlightening in regards to the nature of Informal Logical Fallacy.
When I first committed this "crime" I expected an immediate reaction. I have been as surprised as anyone that my work here has stood for seven months. I had come to understand that this reflected the soundness of the logic involved. Is the logic flawed?
Is there a way to appeal to higher authorities for an exemption to the rigid application of the neutrality principle in this particular case? If so; my contribution to the article stands as my case!
[[User:Layman|Layman]] 7 July 2005 02:44 (UTC)
==== "silly" ====
Further: It only ''seems'' not-notable because it has not yet been notably noted. I maintain that the work/logic wrote itself and only the way it did based on the pre-existing context. The strong relationship between the two fallacies in question is well noted by recognisably credentialed logicians. You yourself noted it in your complaint except ironically concluded that; the thin disguise of an 'ad hominem' as an 'appeal to authority' is not an inversion of 'ad hominem' because it is still an 'ad homonem' ("The meaning is the same..."). I note here that it ''is'' an inversion because the same thin disguise is found in the other direction i.e. an 'appeal to authority' is often obviously only thinly disguised as an 'ad hominem' too! Of course, what is obvious depends on the observer in question.
Both fallacies are only the same 'red-herring' (a diversionary tactic which takes us to an irrelevant sub-argument about the arguer and not the argument itself) but that doesn't stop us distinguishing each as a useful sub-category!
[[User:Layman|Layman]] 8 July 2005 01:52 (UTC)
:The rules are not going to be bent for you and they most certainly shouldn't. The term is non-notable no matter how you look at it, even you admit that you just invented the term yourself. In order for a term to be notable, there needs to be more than a very tiny number (mostly just you) of people using it. It's not helpful, it just serves to confuse people since "inverse ad hominem" implies that it's opposite to ad hominem, which it's not. It's just saying "I have superior credentials" instead of saying "You have inferior credentials." There is no difference as far as logic is concerned. [[User:Njyoder|Nathan J. Yoder]] 8 July 2005 01:20 (UTC)
:See "silly" above (we had a conflict in editing). Your right; the rules should not be bent for "me". I ask that they be bent for the sake of logic. [[User:Layman|Layman]] 8 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)
No, the example of ad hominem at play here does not necessarily mean the person considers themselves an expert and it involves a direct comparison between the two arguers. An appeal to popularity is simply citing some expert as reason that you're right without regard to who your arguer is. A term is, by definition, non-notable if it's by practically no one. I'd like to know of which "credentialied logicians" have used that terms, because I've never seen it before. You can't add a new term just because you think it makes sense either, aside from neologisms not being allowed, that would also be along the lines of original research. [[User:Njyoder|Nathan J. Yoder]] 8 July 2005 02:19 (UTC)
The Inverted Ad Hominem, imo, is a good one. I have had to use such a thing earlier on a discussion board. The argument went: "X is a nice guy and spent all his money on his research, therefore X's research should not be cast into doubt". Besides the apparent illogic of such an argument, I called it an "anti ad hominem" before I saw that this line of reasoning was called an "inverted ad hominem" here. Perhaps the term is nonesense, but it is a rather common logical fallacy these days, and as such needs to be defined in some way. Perhaps a logician classed this fallacy under another category, I don't know. But the fact of the matter is that it is doing the opposite of the ad hominem, rather than attacking someone based on something non-relevent to the discussion, it is defending someone based on something non-relevent to the discussion. But then again, we all do this everyday, stick up for our friends because their "a good friend" whether that has anything to do with the matter at hand. It is in our nature I suppose.
- Xaira
:That's just an appeal to emotion and appeal to authority. [[User:Njyoder|Nathan J. Yoder]] 8 July 2005 17:38 (UTC)
Isn't an ad hominem also an appeal to emotion and to (non) authority? Instead of saying "x is wrong because of y" it is "x is right because of y" when y has nothing to do with the issue at hand. They both appeal to our emotional sense of right and wrong. Both "You can trust his research, because he is an atheist" and "You can not trust his research, because he is an atheist" appeals to our own personal views on the unbiased/biased nature of atheists. Making a positive statement about somebody's moral character as an argument is as illogical as making a negative statement against somebody's moral character. In a debate the "inverted ad hominem", or whatever it should be called, is as much a logical fallacy as the regular ad hominem. - Xaira
:A square is rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square. Please demonstrate that this term is notable. [[User:Njyoder|Nathan J. Yoder]] 8 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)
Nathan, regarding your entry at 8 July 2005 02:19 (UTC). I must say I am starting to have a little trouble following you. I think there are several issues at play here and they are confusing each other. It would be nice to be able to whittle it down to a core issue but I'm not at all sure that will be possible. No harm in trying though, right?
I made no claim that credentialed logicians have used the term. What I ''did'' say was; "The strong relationship between the two fallacies in question is well noted by recognisably credentialed logicians." You have asked me to back this up with some evidence and I will. However, it was you who first made claims about logicians' reasoning processes. In particular you claim to know their reasons for ''not'' inventing the term. Quid pro quo!
You keep telling me what I can't do. I say simply; what's done is done! What you have ''not'' done is tackle what I thought were some clear questions on my part. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough!<br/>
'''Let me now be clear:'''<br/>
Will you and/or can you show me the rule that says; No relaxation of the rules can ever occur!?<br/>
Or:<br/>
The rule that says; How, when and by the authority of whom this may occur!?. [[User:Layman|Layman]] 9 July 2005 02:59 (UTC)
:Please read [[Wikipedia:Neologism]] and take note of the google test. This fails miserably. The only exception that could be made is if it were just different a form of the same word/term, one that would be easily recognized, but it's not. It's claiming to be some sort of opposite, but it's not. Your argument that appeal to popularity and ad hominem have this relation is [[Wikipedia:No original research]], which is also not allowed.
:The opposite of ad hominem would be saying that the person is wrong because of a problem with their argument, which is not a logical fallacy. How the opposite becomes praising yourself is beyond me, since praising yourself is logically identical to denigrating the other person. Lastly, I'd like to say the meaning of "inverted ad hominem" is NOT self-evident, so to create a new term that even the top logicians would not only not recognize, but not understand, is silly. [[User:Njyoder|Nathan J. Yoder]] 9 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)
:You are simply not answering my questions, ignoring my points and counter points and generally being obstinate. I sympathise with your confusion but you are obviously not prepared to consider you may be confused at all. You are the first person who has expressed to me that its meaning is not self-evident and I have displayed it widely for seven months now. The term itself is irrelevant and I have noted that you have taken to saying "inverse ad hominem". Personally, I would be happy for it to be called as such. Then ''you'' might claim credit for the coinage - would that help?
:Note; I edited a part of something I earlier wrote - it was slightly off. Check the history if you are curious. BTW, I'm not sure that it actually is a neologism, and in the sense that it might constitute original research I would say that all of Wikimedia is original research - we are after all talking about its very fabric and what that may be! [[User:Layman|Layman]] 03:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
If your position in this argument is inverted are you now in a non-position or just a different one? [[User:Layman|Layman]] 18:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
:I've answered all of your questions, please point to a single one that I have ignored. You haven't cited a single Wikipedia policy here to back you up, so I'm wondering on what basis this should actually be kept in. I may be the first to say the meaning is not self-evident, but has anyone actually said that it _is_ self-evident in the first place? You're the only one I've seen who says it is self-evident. It surviving for 7 months doesn't mean that it's valid, it just means that no one has known enough or cared enough to bothering changing it.
:And no, it wouldn't help if I also received credit for it, do you really think this is a matter of my ego? I'm removing it because it simply shouldn't be there. Did you read the avoid neologisms and no original research pages yet? I really don't think you understand what they mean. If you really, REALLY want to keep it, I suggest putting up an RFC, but if you don't after a week I'll just nuke all the 'inverted ad hominem nonsense.' [[User:Njyoder|Nathan J. Yoder]] 10:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
===Oh dear,===
:I'm afraid your argument is all over the shop. Now you seem to be attacking the IAH for undermining the credibility of Wikipedia by undermining that very credibility yourself. No, your right, the seven months don't necessarily mean it is valid, '''but''' nor do they necessarily mean that "no one has known enough or cared enough to bothering [sic] changing it". A conclusion you assert with extreme confidence. I'm afraid you confuse confidence with objectivity! Are you sure you want to go down this path? Wikipedia's very strength is also its very weakness. I tell you, this is unavoidable if '''Wikipedia is to be more than merely another authoritarian encyclopedia.'''
:I cite all the Wikipedia policies or "guidelines" to back me up, or more accurately, to back up the IAH! None of them ought to be taken in isolation. In particular, I cite; Point three in [[Wikipedia:Policy trifecta]] - "as a wiki: Ignore all rules - the suggested personal policy - Corollaries: Be bold, avoid instruction creep" and; Pillar Five of [[Wikipedia:Five pillars]] "Wikipedia doesn't have firm rules besides the four general principles elucidated above. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles, because the joy of editing is that perfection isn't required."
:"Ah-Ha", I now here you saying. Pillar five clearly states "...besides the four general principles elucidated above". In particular, I am guessing, you will want to emphasise the first two, namely: Pillar one; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. and Pillar two; Wikipedia uses the "neutral point-of-view".
:'''But''', before we can argue effectively about the relevance (or 'irrelevance' as I would have it) of these two Pillars where it comes to matters of Informal Logic, I need you to understand what IL is! Do you firstly understand that IL is about “natural language”? Do you understand, for example; how the very capitalisation of the term itself makes it effectively oxymoronic? Do you understand why even Logicians can't agree about a method for resolving differences of opinion in the Abstract-Sciences? Especially, where it comes to arguments about the methods for doing so! Do you understand why the very article in question states; "Regarding a logician's last argument it would seem that his/her status is only as relevant and valid as is her/his last argument"? Do you understand how a tool like Wikipedia might play a crucial role in overcoming these problems? [[User:Ed Poor]] sums the situation nicely on the [[Wikipedia:Appeal to authority]] article discussion page, where he says; "The appeal to authority is fallacious ''because Quine says so!''" Personally, I would see that whole article consist only of this very paradox!
:Do you now understand why ‘authority’ generally only works if it is – quite paradoxically – subservient to it’s subordinates. Do you now understand why Logic is the issue here? Why logic itself is the only true authority, and why the question I most want answered of the ones you haven't yet - despite your firm assertion to the contrary - is; '''"Is the logic flawed?"'''
:Also, am I now to understand that you finally understand the official meaning of the word "inverted"? Do you now understand that; if your shirt is inverted it is simply, inside out, upside-down, back-to-front or some such, but certainly not a non-shirt? No, I didn't mean to suggest that your ego is the problem here. But that, maybe you felt mine was! I was saying; I will be happy to compromise on the apparent self-credit. Particularly, I'd be happy for the line about the IAH being a new term coined by yours-truly, to be changed. You have managed to convince me that IAH is in fact not a neologism. I have been asking myself why for example; you have been insisting that IAH represents the neologism “crime” to you, but you don’t seem to have the same problem with the word combination “Regular Ad Hominem”. Nor for that matter do you seem to have a problem with other obvious neologisms in the article i.e. “fallacymonger”. I have only been able to guess that it is my self-reference which is really bothering you. The apparent focus of your otherwise scattered attacks would seem to bare this conclusion out. I assure you, I included the self-reference for the obvious reasons yes, but only justified, to myself, doing so because it seemed the honest thing to do, and because I believed that doing so would add positively to the message of the article.
:I must say in closing though, that your offer of a week's grace to allow for me to act on ''your'' suggestion of "putting up an RFC" seems reasonable. Even if I can't quite work out why this should be my responsibility, I am now planning on doing just that. [[User:Layman|Layman]] 05:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the credibility of anything. This isn't the time nor the place to debate philosophy. The "policy trifecta" page isn't a policy and it doesn't support you anyway. If you look at the five pillars, specifically pillar one, it specifically mentions not using original research and not inserting your opinions/arguments. That's exactly what you're doing here, you're conducting what is essentially original research and inserting your own views into the article. Look at pillar two, it links to [[Wikipedia:Cite_your_sources]], which you aren't doing.
You really need to get off the "lets debate the philosophy of informal logic" bandwagon. It just doesn't cut it for an encyclopedia. An enclopedia is not the place to invent completely new terms that are completely unrecognized by people in a field.
I can't answer you question because it's totally ambiguous and all you're spewing out here is tons of pseudo-philosophical fluff. Is WHAT logic flawed? Is ad hominem flawed logic? Yes. Is appeal to authority flawed logic? Yes. I failed to see what your point is.
You still have been completely unable to demonstrate that this is anything other than a neologism and that anyone beyond a tiny group of people understand what this term means. Any other neologisms in the article should be removed as well, but I thank you for that ad hominem attack against me.
[[User:Njyoder|Nathan J. Yoder]] 19:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
===Sorry Nathan,===
:But if, "[t]his has nothing to do with the credibility of anything", then I completely fail to see how anyone (barring mental handicap of course) whosoever could not completely fail to see how any rules (including Wikipedia's very own) are relevant to anything at all. As Dan Dennett points out in ''Darwin’s Dangerous Idea'' - "Either the net stays up, or it stays down." What he is explaining is how an argument can only descend to absurdity if your opponent refuses to play by the rules of logic.
:In fact, you have now crucially contradicted yourself and I claim total victory in this particular argument. I urge you to concede gracefully or go away quietly. I will await your successor with much anticipation.
:BTW, thankyou for drawing our attention to yet another version of the fallacy of Changing The Subject – namely the Irrelevant Fallacy fallacy. Of course now, I too have committed this fallacy by pointing out your own effort. However if either of us had rested our case crucially on doing so or crucially claimed the other had, then we would have had the Irrelevant Fallacy Fallacy fallacy. Cheers! [[User:Layman|Layman]] 14:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Uhm, what? Wikipedia's rules exist to make a good encyclopedia, if you can't see that then you really shouldn't be contributing to Wikipedia _at all_. Wikipedia exists to be a good encyclopedia, regardless of what others think, so it's not an issue of whether others think it's credible or not. This isn't the whatever-layman-says-goes-un-encyclopedia.
If you don't understand the purpose of rules, then I really can't help you. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about wrt to me refusing to play with the rules of logic, what rulse of logic am I not obeying? Where exactly have I contradicted myself? You're not making the slightest bit of sense. It seems you're also intent on making up other fallacies, there is no "irrelevent fallacy fallacy" and there is no general "fallacy of changing the subject." Ignoring for a moment that I never changed the subject, it's not a fallacy to change the subject and it at your own admittance you're being a hypocrite by violating your own self-invented fallacy, so I'm not really sure what the heck your point is.
You really aren't making any sense here.
[[User:Njyoder|Nathan J. Yoder]] 17:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Well of course, if you say so Nathan, that must be the case! (That was sarcasm in case you couldn't work it out) So, this is about goodness but not credibility? Give me a break! [[User:Layman|Layman]] 07:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
== “Inverted Ad Hominem” ==
Layman is right and so including “Inverted Ad Hominem” and it’s definition in the encyclopedia is completely justified.
[[User:Kahaag|karl]] 22:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanx for the support karl, but I wouldn't want to claim quite as much just yet. [[User:Layman|Layman]] 07:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
== justification ==
I want to see the fun in this little argument so I thought I just let you know my opinion. There are obviously various variations of “Ad Hominem“ arguments, and while you two are going through some actually applying them while you go along you might as well define them with various terms. Doing that shows there is a use for the particular term in question and that justifies the entry in this encyclopaedia. Karl 07:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
:Huh? You're saying that because there are different versions of Ad Hominem that we should automatically put in any other version of AH that someone decides to make up? How the heck does using _other_ versions of Ad hominem that are well established justify using this "inverted ad hominem"? Following your strange logic, I can just make up a new one on the spot and include it in the article. It's called Footastic Ad Hominem. Whenever Karl suggests that njyoder is wrong, Karl is using Footastic Ad Hominem, I think I'll go insert it into the article now! [[User:Njyoder|Nathan J. Yoder]] 17:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, I don’t think we should automatically invent new definitions in these cases. Only when there seems a real need for it. Lets debate whether there is a need for it or not. But that kind of flexibility and openness is one of the great assets of Wikipedia, don’t you think?
In some other little argument I once (jokingly) called something similar to what you just did a “reflexive ad hominem”. You say that I imply you were wrong, but I don’t. I actually think you are a quite sensible person and you are doing a great job here. Nevertheless you state I were using a “Footastic Ad Hominem“ argument against you. :-) And just that is a “reflexive ad hominem”. I never said you were wrong Nathan, I never said anything about you at all apart from that you were exchanging various ad hominem arguments with Layman.
And as for the “Inverted Ad Hominem” I still think it is a precise definition for a very special way of argumentation and so it seems perfect to be added including it’s example. But then, I’m happy either way it is dealt with.
Don't worry Nathan, I will not add the “reflexive ad hominem” to the encyclopedia. :-)
[[User:Kahaag|karl]] 13:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
:I've already discussed this, the so-called "inverted ad hominem" is really just ad hominem. There is no difference between saying "I'm right because I'm smart" and "You're wrong because you're not smart." The latter would supposedly be inverted ad hominem, even though they are logically equivalent. In step 2 of inverted ad hominem it even says there is a direct implication that it's a criticism of something that the person is lacking, which fits the definition of ad hominem perfectly. The only possible inverse you could argue is a grammatical one, not a logical one. I could say "I'm right because I'm not a complete blithering moron" and it would be inverted ad hominem despite there being absolutely no difference between that and just explicitly saying "you're a complete blithering moron." [[User:Njyoder|Nathan J. Yoder]] 16:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
== Inverted Ad Hominem (RFC) ==
A google search for "inverted ad hominem" -wikipedia -encyclopedia [to eliminate most wikipedia mirrors] yields only 40 results. Only 18 of those results are unique (Google omitted overlapping results that are very similar). There are 99 results without eliminating wikipedia mirrors, with only 27 if you exclude overlapping results.
As explained above, the term is coined by the guy who inserted it into the article, it's recognized practically nowhere and its meaning is not self-evident.
The user who inserted it into the article ([[User:Layman]]) has also decided to start recruiting peopl from 'the brights' forum to come to this article to defend him to produce a skewed result. Neither Layman nor the people he's recruiting (including Karl above) seem to understand Wikipeda guidelines and policies.
[http://www.the-brights.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3400&mode=threaded the-brights forum post recruiting people]
[[User:Njyoder|Nathan J. Yoder]] 17:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I can assure you that this added confusion by recruitment was not my intention. Karl, as far as I can tell, can do what he likes.
Nathan, am I to deduce that you would like to start another argument about this? because I can assure you your first effort is finished! Will you agree, to start with this time, that integrity - specifically the integrity of IAH, the AH article and Wikipedia, - is the issue you have? [[User:Layman|Layman]] 07:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I've changed my mind. You couldn't deal with 'credibility' so what hope have we got with 'integrity'?! (those two symbols-together mean the question is rhetorical so please don't answer that) I've been trying to walk you slowly back through this but I've had to face the truth - It seems I can't go slow enough for you! Let's cut to the chase. The rules go directly to structure, which goes directly to integrity, which goes directly to credibility. That's where you lost it last time.
You want to talk about the rules?! (again rhetorical) Let's talk about the rules! Answer me this:
'''Did and/or do the rules apply to the people who wrote/write them when they wrote/write them?'''
[[User:Layman|Layman]] 10:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
:Sigh, you just don't get it and you never will. Your term is stupid and doesn't make sense, but no amount of reasoning will make you get that. You don't seem to want to obey the rules either, which were put there for a reason and were made for this kind of situation, there is nothing exceptional about this. The rules applied de facto to the people when they wrote them, once they wrote them they applied de jure.
:But hey, if you want to ignore the rules which make perfect sense and apply very precisely to this situation go ahead. Insert a term which doesn't make sense, which practically no one knows, which is actually just regular ad hominem and whose meaning is not self-evident. Go ahead and see where that gets you.
:Oh and I suggest you drop the pseudo-philsophical nonsense, it might cut it in your high school philosophy club, but not here. [[User:Njyoder|Nathan J. Yoder]] 14:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
It is a simple question Nathan! Yes, no or maybe? I'll take it as somewhere between yes and maybe and assume that you've anticipated my next question. You seem to be saying that you don't expect those people to have needed to cite their sources. They just kind of know what rules make sense, yes? [[User:Layman|Layman]] 16:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
:I already answered you, read more carefully next time. I'm not going to repeat myself because you're too clouded with emotions to read properly. [[User:Njyoder|Nathan J. Yoder]] 14:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Nathan, you are the only person in the whole world who is arguing with me about this. You do a lot of this sort of arguing don't you? Are you familiar with the Gambler's Fallacy and the Inverse Gambler's Fallacy? [[User:Layman|Layman]] 01:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
:I'm not sure the relevence of me being the only person in the world arguing with you about this is. There are only a total of 3 people who have ever discussed this on Wikipedia, so that's a rather meaningless statement, ignoring the fallacy behind it if it were used as evidence of me being wrong. I'm familiar with both of those, but they have nothing to do with this. [[User:Njyoder|Nathan J. Yoder]]
And, many more who have viewed the article. Yet still only one interlocutor regarding it after all this time. That doesn't mean he's wrong, but I still fail to see why he is right. I have been trying, but have lost hope that he could recognise a rational argument if it bit him. Perhaps he should go back again, this time without his dogmatic authoritarian veiws, and try to understand the article. Perhaps he should also try to understand that Wikipedia is a poor hunting ground for politically ambitious, so minded fascists. You'r own behaviour my freind is at best self-defeating around here. The IAH makes its own case for its very inclusion! However, I no longer have any hope that him doing so is actually possible! Unless you can come up with at least one rational person to support you in this argument, it is finished! [[User:Layman|Layman]] 02:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Not to mention all those who have actively participated in editing the article in the meantime! You are merely one ignorant bully! [[User:Layman|Layman]] 03:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
:We'll ignore for a moment that this is an appeal to popularity (despite you pretending it's not actually part of your argument--I know you're trying to slip it in there as being relevent). Regardless of how many people have viewed the article, there are still only 3 people who have discussed it, EVER. You have consistently made incredibly dumb arguments and managed to be incoherent over and over again. The only one being ambititious here is you, by ignoring all logic, reason and rules and trying to insert yout term just to satisfy your own ego that your idea here is anything other than a poorly thought out idea. So far you have had no rational people to come support you here, so I'm not sure why you're demanding I do the same. All you've done is repeatedly ignore my arguments and spew pseduo-philosophical/pseudo-intellectual nonsense to cover up for your utter inability to defend yourself. [[User:Njyoder|Nathan J. Yoder]] 09:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Here from RfC: The Latin translation is indeed "argument to the man." Based on that and what I've read of logical fallacies I agree with [[User:Njyoder]]. What [[User:Layman]] is calling "inverse ad hominem" is simply ad hominem.[[User:KathL|KathL]] 14:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
===comment from FuelWagon===
This "inverted ad hominem" seems like an invented term. The description given sounds like an appeal to authority or an appeal to the people, or even a subtle ad hominem. All logical fallacies have some overlap, so this could even be considered to be a false cause fallacy, or a red herring. None of the standard sites I use for explaining logical fallacies mention "inverted ad hominem". The term appears to already be covered by a number of different, already existing fallacies. I see no legitimate reason to give such a marginal term equal credit with a standard definition as "ad hominem". If removing the term complete causes a revert war due to editor insistence of this term being mentioned, then, at the very ''most'', put one sentence at the bottom of the article mentioning "inverted ad hominem" and give a URL to a site that defines it. Dont' define it. Just mention it is a marginal term and give a URL. That's my opinion. [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 20:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
:The one and only site (aside from Wikipedia and its mirrors) that defines it is a web forum on "the brights" website. That is the forum where the guy who invented the term created it ([[User:Layman]]) and it is also the same guy who inserted it into the article. The only support given on Wikipedia for it, other than by Layman himself, is another person who he recruited from that same forum. This is definitely not a term you'd find in a book or website about logical fallacies. [[User:Njyoder|Nathan J. Yoder]] 15:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
===Comment from Gkhan===
I can't believe this is still being discussed. Inserting inverted ad hominem is a CLEAR breach of policy. Here is the relevant equation:
:Layman invents term + Term is virtually unknown + Layman inserts it into article = WP:NOR breach
Now, I am not saying this is the only policy it breaches, clearly the topic is non-notable and therefore not encyclopedic. I am just saying that it is the most obvious one. I am 100% behind Njyoder in this. Laymans argument that just because nobody is discussing with him except Njyoder therefore he is right is ridiculus (you could say it is an Inverted [[Argumentum ad populum]]. Hey, look at that, now I have invented a fallacy). [[User:Gkhan|gkhan]] 10:17, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
===Another comment===
This is original research. It appears to be a new word for [[argumentum ad verecundiam]], or something close. [[User:Christopherparham|Christopher Parham]] [[User_talk:Christopherparham|(talk)]] 01:04, 2005 July 30 (UTC)
Indeed - credit to Nathan for being so patient - i also fail to see any difference between 'inverted' and common-or-garden ad hominem - should be removed completely. [[User:Petesmiles|Petesmiles]] 03:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
===Nathan ===
You're clearly correct on the points you've made. And you've been promising to fix it for three weeks now. I just went ahead and edited it, more along the lines of a clearer, simpler, and more correct earlier version. Feel free to rewrite or improve as you see fit. We really could use some references and external links here, too. [[User:Acerimusdux|Acerimusdux]] 07:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks for making the edits. I do admit I'm a bit lazy, but I didn't change it sooner because I thought that Layman himself would have made the RFC and responses (for consensus--to avoid a revert war) would have been quicker. I'm glad this is over with. Just so I don't come off as totally lazy, I promise that sometime wbetween the next week and 10 years I'll insert some references into this article. [[User:Njyoder|Nathan J. Yoder]] 09:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
===comment from SaltyPig (against "inverted ad hominem")===
for years i've been bemoaning the never-ending permutations (or even just examples) of classic fallacies which some logic sites attempt to quantify with needless, official-sounding terms. similarly, i loathe the attempts by [[User:Layman]] to noodge his invented and, IMO, distorting, cutesy, and unnecessary term into the article. but fortunately for this discussion, my opinion of the term is irrelevant, as [[User:Njyoder]] correctly concluded; it's an obvious violation of wikipedia standards. argument for or against the term's value should take place somewhere other than article talk pages. thanks to nathan for taking the time to fight this battle he never should have had to.
BTW, i propose that what aristotle called ''ad hominem'' henceforth be known as ''reverse polarity inverted ad hominem'', and that this article be moved to that more modern title. [[User:SaltyPig|SaltyPig]] 10:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
===comment from Saxifrage===
Clearly this term is novel and supported by only original research. There should be no debate—it does not belong in the article. [[User:Layman]], use your considerable logical faculties to see how this inevitably follows from the premises laid out in [[WP:NOR]]. — [[User:Saxifrage|Saxifrage]] | [[User talk:Saxifrage|☎]] 22:18, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
===comment from Ajax1973===
Layman's term is correct and instead of ganging up on him and making fun of him you guys should at least acknolwedge it's something that's not covered in the article as it is now. I came here looking almost explicitly for the concept he defined as Inverted Ad Hominem and was disappointed not to see it until I saw this discussion, which was pretty horrifying to read. Inverted Ad Hominem is not solely confined to "appeal to authority":
When senator Zell Miller went up to the podium at the RNC last year, the fact that he was a Democrat made his endorsement of Bush, a Republican, more compelling regardless of the points he was making.
Being a Democrat does not mean one has more "authority" in politics, but the same above operates as the same device that Layman's neologism describes. In addition, the term "ad hominem defense" turns up 322 times on Google, including an arbitration dispute on wikipedia.
==Argument from Intimidation==
I haven't seen this particular form of Ad Hom included, but then I don't even know if it is worthy of inclusion. I read about it reading Ayn Rand. It consists of insulting a third party.
X people support idea Y.
You're much smarter than X people, surely you don't support idea Y.
She called it Argument from Intimidation, that you would be intimidated away from idea Y because you don't want to be associated with people X.
[[User:Harvestdancer|Harvestdancer]] 22:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
:Are you sure that wasn't [[HC Andersen|that danish guy]] who wrote [[Emperor's New Clothes|that story]] about a king or emperor or something :P? [[User:Gkhan|gkhan]] 11:26, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
::It's probably the same idea, but I read about it in a Rand essay. She gave it the name "Argument from Intimidation" and described it instead of telling a story about it.[[User:Harvestdancer|Harvestdancer]] 20:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
| 