In the last class, we talked about an ad hominem argument called a silencer. And we said that while there are some silencers that are good arguments, a lot of them given in every day life are bad arguments. They're fallacies. Today I want to talk about another kind of ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument called a dismisser. I want to say what dismissers are. I want to give some examples of dismissers that actually are pretty good arguments, but then I want to give some examples of dismissers that occur in every day life that are bad arguments. Okay. So, let's start by defining what dismissers are. So, as I said, a dismisser is a kind of ad hominem argument. It begins with premises about a particular person who's making a point, and it ends with a conclusion. To the effect that that person's reasons for that point are not good reasons, right? So, a dismisser is not a silencer. It's not saying that the person has no right to speak about the issue. It's not saying that we should just disregard anything they have to say about the issue. Fine, they're entitled to speak about the issue. Maybe we should listen to what they have to say about the issue, but we should not regard the reasons that they gave as good reasons. That's the point of a dismisser. Now, as I said there are some dismissers that are good arguments. Let's consider a couple of examples. First, consider the following argument, right. Let's suppose we've just watch an advertisement, in which a coalition of companies in the fossil fuel industry are, giving an argument, in the ad, to the effect that climate change is a hoax. In fact that there, in fact there's no significant man-made climate change taking place in the environment today. Now, we might argue as follows. 'Kay, premise, the fossil fuel industry is eager to operate under as little environmental regulation as possible. That's true of all companies that are interested in turning a profit. Conclusion. Therefore, any reason that the members of the fossil fuel industry give in support of the conclusion that climate change is a hoax are unlikely to provide strong support for that conclusion. Okay, now, that argument, I claim, is a good one. It's a dismisser where you're arguing from the interests of the fossil fuel industry. To the conclusion that we should take whatever reasons they give in defence of their conclusion that climate change is a hoax. We should take those reasons with a grain of salt, we should be suspicious of them. Now, of course, that's not to say for a moment that we should simply deny those reasons or deny the conclusion that climate change is a hoax. That's a substantive question that requires climatological expertise to answer. But, while we leave it open as a possibility that the argument being made by members of the fossil fuel industry is in fact a sound argument. We only leave it open as a possibility. We recognize that what's very likely to be true given their interest is that the argument that they are making is not a good argument. Possibly it is. We have to investigate. But based on what we know now about the interests of the fossil fuel industry, it very likely is not a good argument. Okay. So, let's give another example of a dismisser that's a good argument. Let's suppose the head of a particular bureaucracy is arguing that cuts to that bureaucracy's operating budget would be absolutely devastating. In fact, given the centrality of that bureaucracy's mission, it's in fact crucial that they're operating budget be at least maintained, and preferably, significantly grown. Okay, now we might give the following dismisser argument. We might say look, the head of that bureaucracy is eager to have as large an operating budget as possible under her control. That's her job, is to gather as many resources as possible and harness them in the service of whatever purposes she sets out to achieve. But from that, we could draw the conclusion that any reasons that she gives in support of the conclusion that her department, her bureaucracy, needs to maintain or grow its current budget. Those reasons are unlikely to provide strong support for that conclusion. Again, that leaves it open. Perhaps the conclusion is true. Perhaps even the reasons provide strong support for that conclusion. And certainly, she's entitled to have an opinion on the issue, she's entitled to sound off on the issue. But we should be suspicious. Of her argument, given the interest that she has, given her powerful personal interest in increasing the size of her operating budget, we should be very suspicious of the reasons that she gives. We should assume that they're false, unless we have good reason to believe that they're true. We should assume that they don't support her conclusion, unless we have good reason to believe that they do. Okay, so these are some examples of dismisser ad hominem arguments, that are actually pretty good arguments. But more often than not, dismissers are given in everyday life That are not good arguments, that are fallacies. We might dismiss someone's reasons for a particular conclusion, not because we detect that that person's own interests, let's say, their professional interests or their financial interests. Determined that they would give this argument in favor of this conclusion. But rather because that person has some feature that maybe we don't like. maybe we think they're too smart by half or maybe there's something about them, strikes us as suspicious. We can't quite put our finger on it but Maybe they just seem vaguely, I don't know, European. Something like that. We, we on account of that feature we suspect that whatever argument they're giving is not a good argument. Okay. Those are examples of dismissers that are fallacies. Let's consider some examples of those now.
