Today we're going to talk about a particular kind of fallacy of relevance. Known as an ad hominem argument. Now those of you who know Latin, will know that ad hominem means to the person. But what kind of a fallacy is a Ad Hominem fallacy? Well, as is suggested by the name, an Ad Hominem fallacy is one that begins with premises about a particular person who's making an argument, and ends with a conclusion that's critical of that person's argument. It's critical of that person's argument, solely on the basis of premises having to do with that person, him or herself. I'll give you a simple example to show you what I mean. so suppose Takahashi has just given an eloquent presentation of some evidence that normalizing, U.S. relation with Cuba would result in massive benefits to both nations. Both the United States and Cuba would be much better off if relations between the two countries were normalized. Okay, now, you might argue as follows as well, Takahshi has just given this eloquent presentation, but Takahshi owns a cigar import business. Which stands to profit from the normalization of relations between the US and Cuba. Therefore we should disregard Takahashi's presentation. Okay, now that's an example of an ad hominem argument, right? You're arguing from a premise about Takahashi, him or herself, right? That, she stands to profit from normalization of relations, to the conclusion that whatever evidence was given in her presentation, we just shouldn't listen to it. We shouldn't bother with that evidence, because after all, Takahashi stands to profit. Okay. That's an example of an ad hominem argument. Now, there are three kinds of Ad Hominem argument that I think it's worth distinguishing, and those three kinds of Ad Hominem argument correspond to three different things that a person is doing whenever they give an argument. Let's think about what you're doing when you give an argument. Well, when you give an argument, let's say when you give an argument to a particular audience, right, you're trying to persuade them of something. First of all, your behavior implies, that you're entitled to put forth claims about the issue in question, right? So, if I give an argument, let's say, about. let's say I give an argument to the effect that housing prices in the Southeastern states in the United States are going to rise by over 10% over the coming year. Well, one thing I'm doing when I give that argument is implying by my behavior that, I'm entitled to have an opinion about that, I am entitled to put forth claims about that, I have whatever knowledge it would take to be in a position to put forth claims about that. Right, if I am completely ignorant about the housing market and its resisitudes, then, I shouldn't be making any such claims at all. If I'm completely ignorant about the vicissitudes of the housing market, then I'm in no position to be making any such argument. So one thing I'm doing when I make an argument is that I'm implying that I'm entitled to put forth claims about the issue in question. The second thing I'm doing when I make an argument is implying that certain premises, namely the premises that I'm giving in my argument, support the conclusion that I'm offering, right? That the premises that I'm giving are true and bear some relation of support to that conclusion. Maybe the argument from those premises to that consclusion is a valid argument. Maybe it's just a probablistically strong argument. But in any case, the premises offer some support for the conclusion. That's another thing I'm implying when I give the argument. And then, of course, the third thing is I'm claiming the conclusion is true. So those are three things that I'm doing whenever I give any argument, whenever I try to prove any point. I'm doing at least those three things. And corresponding to each one of those three things, there's a kind of ad hominem argument, that denies that I've successfully executed that thing. Okay. So let's look at the three kind of ad hominem arguments, corresponding to these three things that I'm doing whenever I give an argument. Okay. So the first kind of ad hominem argument is what I call a silencer. That's an argument that begins with some premises about a person who is making a point, giving an argument, and ends with a conclusion to the effect that we should disregard that person's argument altogether. It's not that the person's argument is valid or invalid, or that their conclusion is true, or false, or whatever, just, we shouldn't pay any attention at all. Right? Because the person isn't entitled to give any argument on this issue. So we shouldn't even worry about whether their argument is valid or invalid, or whether their conclusion is true or not, because the person isn't entitled to speak on the issue. That's what a silencer argument does, okay? So a silencer argument basically. Denies that a, really is entitled to put forth claims about the issue. That they really have successfully executed what they would have to have done in order for one to be true. Okay. A second type of ad hominem argument is called a dismisser. A dismisser begins with premises about a particular person who's making a point, or giving an argument, and ends with a conclusion to the effect that that person's reasons, the reasons they're giving in defense of that point, are not good reasons. A dismisser doesn't say that the conclusion of their argument is false. A dismisser just says their reasons are no good, so don't pay any attention to their argument. Because the premises given in support of their conclusion don't actually support their conclusion. Maybe the premises are false. Or maybe they're just irrelevant to the conclusion. But don't pay any attention. Because, after all their conclusion, whether true or false, is unsupported by their argument. So, that's what a dismisser does. A dismisser, in short, is an argument to the effect that the person that you're attacking, hasn't successfully executed task two. That they have to perform whenever giving an argument. They might imply that certain premises support a conclusion on the issue, but they're wrong. Those premises don't actually support that conclusion. Maybe because they're false or maybe because they're irrelevant to the conclusion. Okay. Finally the third kind of ad hominem argument is called a denier. Now, a denier is an argument that begins with some premises about a person who's making a point, and ends with a conclusion to the affect that denies the conclusion of that other person's argument. In other words, whatever you have to say about their entitlement to speak on the issue, whatever you have to say about the truth of their premises or the relevance of their premises. A denier claims that the conclusion that they reach is false. So, a denier says that the person hasn't successfully executed task three that's associated with giving an argument. They claim that the conclusion is true, but their claim is wrong. Okay. So those are the three kind of ad hominem arguments corresponding to the three things that a person is doing whenever they're giving an argument. Next time, we're going to look in more detail, at each of those kinds of ad hominem arguments. In particular, next time, we'll examine silencer arguments, and then, we'll look at dismissers and deniers. See you next time.
