Psychologizing

[Xray]

Of course, I was talking about Billy Civility, not you. You would never call an insult an "ad hominem" without specifying the noun modified by this adjective, or at least making the noun clear by implication. For you have read Strunk and White.

Ghs

But can't "ad hominem" be used elliptically, as a short form for "argumentum ad hominem", like here:

An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the opponent advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,[2] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Also, there may be a change in actual language use going on where ad hominem is becoming a mere synonym for "personal insult", thus converting from adjective to noun. In the English language, the linguistic phenomeon of conversion is quite frequent.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Of course, I was talking about Billy Civility, not you. You would never call an insult an "ad hominem" without specifying the noun modified by this adjective, or at least making the noun clear by implication. For you have read Strunk and White.

Ghs

But can't "ad hominem" be used eliptically, as a short form for "argumentum ad hominem", like here:

An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the opponent advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,[2] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3]

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Ad_hominem

Also, there may be a change in actual language use going on where ad hominem more and more becomes a synonym for "personal insult", thus converting from adjective to noun. In the English language, the linguistic phenomeon of conversion is quite frequent.

George's way leaves room for thinking. You way ends the discusion by too narrowly focusing the concept to one "short form" for the formal rendition.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

> Also, there may be a change in actual language use going on where ad hominem more and more becomes a synonym for "personal insult", thus converting from adjective to noun. In the English language, the linguistic phenomenon of conversion is quite frequent. [Xray]

That's right.

It's quite appropriate for Billy Civility to criticize someone for "ad hominems" who, for example, i) uses name-calling, is ii) always insulting people, or iii) uses character assassination or iv) focusing on the nature or shortcomings of one's opponent rather than focusing on the argument or case he is presenting.

It's quite within the realm of current usage. And everyone knows what Billy means.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Philip Coates

[jriggenbach]

> Also, there may be a change in actual language use going on where ad hominem more and more becomes a synonym for "personal insult", thus converting from adjective to noun. In the English language, the linguistic phenomenon of conversion is quite frequent. [Xray]

That's right.

It's quite appropriate for Billy Civility to criticize someone for "ad hominems" who, for example, i) uses name-calling, is ii) always insulting people, or iii) uses character assassination or iv) focusing on the nature or shortcomings of one's opponent rather than focusing on the argument or case he is presenting.

It's quite within the realm of current usage. And everyone knows what Billy means.

It is quite appropriate for someone confronted by a tiresome scold like Billy Civility to exclaim in exasperation, "Why, what an utter ass you are!" Further, when confronted by someone whose grasp of the concept "argument" is so defective that the "case" he makes for his views is utterly incoherent - little better, really than a string of unconnected words, broken here and there by capital letters and periods so as to resemble sentences - it is quite appropriate to focus one's attention and one's remarks on the shortcomings of such an "opponent" rather than wasting time with his "presentation."

JR

[George H. Smith]

But can't "ad hominem" be used elliptically, as a short form for "argumentum ad hominem"...., like here:

Yes, of course it can, and I said so explicitly in my article. Did anyone actually read my article?

.

"Ad hominem"” was traditionally construed as shorthand for an ad hominem argument. When a person said that x is an ad hominem, he normally meant that x is an ad hominem argument; and this meant that, in the opinion of the speaker, x is a fallacious argument.

Nowadays, however, people frequently use "ad hominem" to mean – well, to mean just about anything they don’t like. For example, if you call a person a name he does not like or attribute a motive to him that he does not like, he will complain that you have used an ad hominem. In this sloppy and annoying usage, there is no argument to which “ad hominem” can attach itself. Ad hominem just hangs out there, dangling and ready to be plucked by anyone who isn’t sure what in particular he wants to say, but who is sure that to say nothing in particular in Latin will sound much more impressive.

So what does Billy Civility mean when he uses the dangling “ad hominem”? He clearly wants to retain the traditional connection between “ad hominem” and a type of fallacious argument, as we see in his insistence that Ad Hominemers are both rude and illogical. But he then engages in some linguistic sleight-of-hand by calling any insult or attribution of motives an “ad hominem,” even when the remark in question it is not part of an argument at all....

Please, Lord, take me now before I go on a muderous rampage....

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

> Also, there may be a change in actual language use going on where ad hominem more and more becomes a synonym for "personal insult", thus converting from adjective to noun. In the English language, the linguistic phenomenon of conversion is quite frequent. [Xray]

That's right.

It's quite appropriate for Billy Civility to criticize someone for "ad hominems" who, for example, i) uses name-calling, is ii) always insulting people, or iii) uses character assassination or iv) focusing on the nature or shortcomings of one's opponent rather than focusing on the argument or case he is presenting.

It's quite within the realm of current usage. And everyone knows what Billy means.

Suppose JR got so exasperated with Billy Civility that he pulled Billy to the ground, sat on him, and farted in his face.

"Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem!" cried Billy.

"An ad hominem what?" asked a perplexed JR.

"That was an ad hominem fart!" replied Billy, having read his cousin Phil's explanation that the adjective "ad hominem" can modify any number of things.

"I agree!" said JR; "My fart was indeed an insult -- and it was definitely aimed at a person, as you astutely pointed out in Latin. But was my fart a logical fallacy? If so, my fart must have been an argument, and I would like to know what kind of argument a fart is."

"I don't know," said Billy Civility. "I will have my cousin Phil come over so you can fart in his face. Maybe he can tell you what kind of argument a fart is."

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

> Also, there may be a change in actual language use going on where ad hominem more and more becomes a synonym for "personal insult", thus converting from adjective to noun. In the English language, the linguistic phenomenon of conversion is quite frequent. [Xray]

That's right.

It's quite appropriate for Billy Civility to criticize someone for "ad hominems" who, for example, i) uses name-calling, is ii) always insulting people, or iii) uses character assassination or iv) focusing on the nature or shortcomings of one's opponent rather than focusing on the argument or case he is presenting.

It's quite within the realm of current usage. And everyone knows what Billy means.

Suppose JR got so exasperated with Billy Civility that he pulled Billy to the ground, sat on him, and farted in his face.

"Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem!" cried Billy.

"An ad hominem what?" asked a perplexed JR.

"That was an ad hominem fart!" replied Billy, having read his cousin Phil's explanation that the adjective "ad hominem" can modify any number of things.

"I agree!" said JR; "My fart was indeed an insult -- and it was definitely aimed at a person, as you astutely pointed out in Latin. But was my fart a logical fallacy? If so, my fart must have been an argument, and I would like to know what kind of argument a fart is."

"I don't know," said Billy Civility. "I will have my cousin Phil come over so you can fart in his face. Maybe he can tell you what kind of argument a fart is."

Ghs

That's argumentum ad baculum.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

I thought it was argumentum ad fartulum.

[Selene]

I thought it was argumentum ad fartulum.

That one stunk!

[Philip Coates]

Well, for being sat on it was either that or argumentum ad flatten'em.

[Selene]

Well, for being sat on it was either that or argumentum ad flatten'em.

Argumentum ad flatulencem would work better with the internal pun from the buns!

[Brant Gaede]

I think this subject is out of gas.

--Brant

I hope and pray

[caroljane]

I think this subject is out of gas.

--Brant

I hope and pray

I fear it is ad infinitum and has gone ad nauseam.

[Robert Campbell]

Argumentum ad flatum would I think be the Latin.

Whatever.

Robert Campbell

[Xray]

I thought it was argumentum ad fartulum.

That one stunk!

I've opened the window for some fresh air relief. Imagine a newbie happening to land on this thread and reading about posters on a philosophy forum praising The Virtue of Flatulence.

If, while engaged in a discussion with Billy, you call him a “jackass” or some other bad name, he will quickly claim that you have uttered an ad hominem. He will say the same thing if you call other people names.

What if Billy C. tells you that he uses ad hominem as a synonym for "insult",

quoting to you an excerpt from articles like the following.

"The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ad+hominem

Edited March 24, 2011 by Xray

[Selene]

I've opened the window for some fresh air relief. Imagine a newbie happening to land on this thread and reading about posters on a philosophy forum praising The Virtue of Flatulence.

They could just skip your post then...

sorry, you opened the window for that all by yourself.

Adam

[George H. Smith]

If, while engaged in a discussion with Billy, you call him a “jackass” or some other bad name, he will quickly claim that you have uttered an ad hominem. He will say the same thing if you call other people names.

What if Billy C. tells you that he uses ad hominem as a synonym for "insult",

quoting to you an excerpt from articles like the following.

"The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ad+hominem

Here we agree. When people complain about an ad hominem, in many cases all they really mean is that they have been insulted, by whatever means and for whatever reason. This was a point I tried to make in my article, apparently without much success.

Suppose someone calls Billy Civility a "jackass," and he replies, "Ad hominem!" If, by "ad hominem," Billy means to say that he has been insulted, then he has given us a valuable piece of information, and our keen observer deserves our gratitude and an appropriate reaction:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/g6GuEswXOXo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

As I pointed out in my article, when Billy Civility identifies an insult as an "ad hominem" without explaining what he means, he typically wishes to convey the message that his adversary is committing a logical fallacy known as the ad hominem argument, even though no argument is involved. Billy thinks he can get away with this for two reasons: first, because insults are a prominent element in many ad hominem arguments; and, second, because a dangling "ad hominem" is frequently used as shorthand for "ad hominem argument."

If all Billy intends is to point out that words like "jackass" and "asshole" are insults, then his trite observation falls in the D'oh! category mentioned above. But if you watch Billy in action, you will see that he has more than pointless pedantry in mind. He is counting on the ambiguity of "ad hominem" to announce that his adversary is being both rude and irrational. The adversary is rude because he uses insults. The adversary is irrational because he commits a logical fallacy in the course of using insults.

The great thing about Billy's sleazy tactics is that he has plausible deniability. If called on his stealthy identification of a nonexistent fallacious argument, Billy can always point out that "ad hominem" means a number of different things, and that he didn't necessarily mean to accuse his insulting adversary of committing an ad hominem fallacy. More often than not, however, Billy finds that he has clear sailing, especially in a sea of O'ist types and others who pride themselves on their rationality.

In the final analysis, Billy engages in what Ayn Rand called the Argument from Intimidation. More on this later. Meanwhile, if people who didn't quite get the point of my original article go back and read it again, it might be clearer to them now.

Ghs--

[Selene]

Correct.

I was startled by how many folks are ignorant of the principles of argumentation.

[Philip Coates]

> the ambiguity of "ad hominem"..Billy's sleazy tactics.."ad hominem" means a number of different things [GHS]

Let me see if I've got this straight: Someone calls someone else a "wife-beater" or a "jackass" or an "evader", smears him or attacks his character. And the attacked party protests against the ad hominem.

You're actually saying that the person being attacked is the one who is using "sleazy tactics"? That he is the one we should protest against - because his response seems too 'ambiguous'?

[George H. Smith]

> the ambiguity of "ad hominem"..Billy's sleazy tactics.."ad hominem" means a number of different things [GHS]

Let me see if I've got this straight: Someone calls someone else a "wife-beater" or a "jackass" or an "evader", smears him or attacks his character. And the attacked party protests against the ad hominem.

You're actually saying that the person being attacked is the one who is using "sleazy tactics"? That he is the one we should protest against - because his response seems too 'ambiguous'?

I don't think you are getting the point here.

Some time ago you responded to one of my posts by calling me an asshole. Okay, this was obviously an insult. If I didn't like your insulting language, I had a number of options. I could have asked you to stop using insults; I could have refused to deal with you any longer; I could have insulted you back; and so forth.

But suppose I responded by saying, "To call me an asshole is an ad hominem." What might I have meant by this? Well, if I were using "ad hominem" to mean any kind of insult, then my original statement, "To call me an asshole is an ad hominem," would simply mean this: "To call me an asshole is an insult."

What are the odds that in calling asshole an ad hominem, I merely mean that asshole is an insult? This is not very likely, to say the least. For what would be the point? Do I regard you as so dense as not to understand that asshole is an insult? Would I be attempting to clarify matters, thinking that you might have used asshole in some other, non-insulting sense? Am I expecting you to respond by saying: "Asshole is an insult? Really? Gosh, George, I'm truly sorry. I had no idea that asshole is an insulting term, for I am from another planet, and on my planet asshole means that you are a nice guy. This is the first I've heard that asshole is an insult on planet Earth, so I will be careful from now now on. Thanks for the information."

Moreover, if I merely wished to point out that asshole is an insulting term, then why wouldn't I just say this? Why bring in the Latin expression ad hominem at all, if all I meant by this was insult? Why wouldn't I simply say, "Asshole is an insult"?

Given these factors, the presumption here (which might be mistaken in exceptional circumstances) is that I am using ad hominem to suggest that you are committing the fallacy associated with ad hominem arguments. You are not guilty of this, of course, because you made no argument at all; and where there is no ad hominem argument there can be no ad hominem fallacy.

Rather, I am manipulating the ambiguity of ad hominem to suggest that you have committed a fallacy when you have not, and from this we are supposed to conclude that you are not only rude but irrational as well. But all you have done in fact is to insult me. This may be rude, but it is not necessarily irrational, and you certainly have not committed a fallacy of some kind.

My tactic here would be sleazy because it is dishonest. If I merely wanted to point out that you have insulted me -- a point that no one would dispute -- then I should have said this. If I wanted to accuse you of being irrational because of a fallacy you supposedly committed, then I should have said this. But to disguise my unwarranted criticism of you in an ambiguous Latin phrase is to disown responsibility for my fuzzy accusation. And this is just plain sleazy. The fact that I may use this deceptive tactic in the service of what I regard as a good cause is irrelevant.

Ghs

[anthony]

Exactly, Sir George. Call it what it is.

In many cases 'ad hominem' is philosophical political correctness for a goddamned insult.

(I've thought.)

Latin is great, but Anglo-Saxon is honest.

[Dennis Hardin]

New Poll:

Which form of torture is more horrifying: This thread or Howard Cosell?

[Greybird]

[GHS suggests a case where one is] manipulating the ambiguity of ad hominem to suggest that you have committed a fallacy when you have not, and from this we are supposed to conclude that you are not only rude but irrational as well.

We are? There's an unadmitted middle premise in this chain of reasoning, I'd say: that someone who commits a logical fallacy is "being irrational." If that last implies asserting the presence of a habitual trait, then it's an impossibly high standard. Even the most careful of speakers or writers can and do commit such fallacies every day.

I see this, apropos of an Objectivist setting, to be a shortcut to moral judgment. (As Pope Leonard I has instructed us to practice constantly, which prescription merits incessant insults, say I.) Logical failings are taken to mean that one is not practicing rationality as a consistent virtue, and therefore they end up being indicative of an ethical failing.

I sincerely doubt that this is what you mean, George, but it's part of the verbal ju-jitsu all too common in Objectivist circles, including the present forum.

But all you have done in fact is to insult me. This may be rude, but it is not necessarily irrational, and you certainly have not committed a fallacy of some kind.

No, not a fallacy, although to me it's belaboring the obvious to say that. What may well be evidence of irrationality is someone's habitual, routine, and unelaborated attempts to make an insult into a substitute for an argument — in a setting where a genuine argument is demanded or expected.

I think you're dwelling too much on a misappropriated or overused label. "Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound," goes an old saw. It's a borrowing of the unearned ... not really "prestige," as Latin has been dead outside churches since the Enlightenment, but of a sanctification from the mists of the past.

Dressing up "insult" as "ad hominem" makes for being pretentious, for borrowing fancy verbal dress, but it's not a linguistic or rhetorical crime.

[...] to disguise my unwarranted criticism of you in an ambiguous Latin phrase is to disown responsibility for my fuzzy accusation. And this is just plain sleazy.

Words that obscure the nature of insults aren't so much "sleazy" as being unproductive or, at times, dishonest. We should own up to making insults. Unfortunately, doing so consistently would work against the self-image of too many in this and every other similar forum, who want a discussion presence but choose to be lazy about it.

I've become afraid to suggest that "being civil" has been made into a pariah-idea throughout this thread, but I finally have to do so. Wouldn't it be better to simply say that wielding the flashing saber of insult ends up driving away the substance of discussion? And the morale of those who try to undertake it?

Few manage to make insults into something substantive, and short of a Mencken, I find it hard to think of anyone who's genuinely mastered it. I know I haven't. I wish others here would be more honest about it ... and if that shoe of criticism fits, for anyone here, wear it long enough to pinch you and make you contemplate whether casual or constant insults aren't simply wasting everybody's time.

[George H. Smith]

[GHS suggests a case where one is] manipulating the ambiguity of ad hominem to suggest that you have committed a fallacy when you have not, and from this we are supposed to conclude that you are not only rude but irrational as well.

We are? There's an unadmitted middle premise in this chain of reasoning, I'd say: that someone who commits a logical fallacy is "being irrational." If that last implies asserting the presence of a habitual trait, then it's an impossibly high standard. Even the most careful of speakers or writers can and do commit such fallacies every day.

I see this, apropos of an Objectivist setting, to be a shortcut to moral judgment. (As Pope Leonard I has instructed us to practice constantly, which prescription merits incessant insults, say I.) Logical failings are taken to mean that one is not practicing rationality as a consistent virtue, and therefore they end up being indicative of an ethical failing.

I sincerely doubt that this is what you mean, George, but it's part of the verbal ju-jitsu all too common in Objectivist circles, including the present forum.

But all you have done in fact is to insult me. This may be rude, but it is not necessarily irrational, and you certainly have not committed a fallacy of some kind.

No, not a fallacy, although to me it's belaboring the obvious to say that. What may well be evidence of irrationality is someone's habitual, routine, and unelaborated attempts to make an insult into a substitute for an argument — in a setting where a genuine argument is demanded or expected.

I think you're dwelling too much on a misappropriated or overused label. "Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound," goes an old saw. It's a borrowing of the unearned ... not really "prestige," as Latin has been dead outside churches since the Enlightenment, but of a sanctification from the mists of the past.

Dressing up "insult" as "ad hominem" makes for being pretentious, for borrowing fancy verbal dress, but it's not a linguistic or rhetorical crime.

[...] to disguise my unwarranted criticism of you in an ambiguous Latin phrase is to disown responsibility for my fuzzy accusation. And this is just plain sleazy.

Words that obscure the nature of insults aren't so much "sleazy" as being unproductive or, at times, dishonest. We should own up to making insults. Unfortunately, doing so consistently would work against the self-image of too many in this and every other similar forum, who want a discussion presence but choose to be lazy about it.

I've become afraid to suggest that "being civil" has been made into a pariah-idea throughout this thread, but I finally have to do so. Wouldn't it be better to simply say that wielding the flashing saber of insult ends up driving away the substance of discussion? And the morale of those who try to undertake it?

Few manage to make insults into something substantive, and short of a Mencken, I find it hard to think of anyone who's genuinely mastered it. I know I haven't. I wish others here would be more honest about it ... and if that shoe of criticism fits, for anyone here, wear it long enough to pinch you and make you contemplate whether casual or constant insults aren't simply wasting everybody's time.

I agree with you about my use of "irrational." In earlier posts I used the word "illogical," and that is more accurate. I am usually careful about how I use "irrational," and I don't recall exactly why I switched words. I was probably thinking from the point of view of more extreme O'ists, who do tend to prefer the stronger word, "irrational," because of its moral connotations.

It was never my intention to write a brief defending incivility. In fact, I viewed my original post on ad hominem as something of a footnote, something that I could write quickly while thinking over the much more important topic of credibility. I never expected much disagreement about my basic point. The value, to me, of bringing up the point about ad hominem arguments lay in its usefulness for illustrating the difference between what I called abstract and concrete arguments, but I haven't gotten that far yet.

There is an obvious problem with writing an article on the go and posting each part before finishing the entire piece. As I got into this subject matter, new issues occurred to me, and I wasn't sure how to fit them in. Normally, I would write the entire article out and then go back and make the necessary changes before posting anything. But that has not been my procedure here, and the result is a series of distinct mini-essays that are only loosely related rather than an integrated article. Nevertheless, there are some overarching themes in my mind, but these may not become clear until later on.

Having said this, I think the civility police -- a mindset that seems to pop up on every elist and internet forum -- are overdue for a thorough drubbing. If name calling is the most common form of incivility on forums, it is also the most overt and therefore the most honest. It is an honest form of insult, and I vastly prefer it over the more covert forms, such as the arrogance of supposing that a person has somehow been appointed to watch over the manners of others. If these people were honest about their own incivilities, I would not have as much of a problem, but they seem to think that their insults are always justified. Moreover the simplistic pap we get from them, such as the supposed distinction between the person and the argument, is high school stuff that shows massive ignorance about how concrete arguments typically work.

Civility is part of the art of communication. It is not something that can he learned by the mechanical application of a set of rigid rules. As with all arts, the best way to learn civility is to practice it.

Ghs

[Robert Campbell]

There's an unadmitted middle premise in this chain of reasoning, I'd say: that someone who commits a logical fallacy is "being irrational." If that last implies asserting the presence of a habitual trait, then it's an impossibly high standard. Even the most careful of speakers or writers can and do commit such fallacies every day.

I see this, apropos of an Objectivist setting, to be a shortcut to moral judgment. (As Pope Leonard I has instructed us to practice constantly, which prescription merits incessant insults, say I.) Logical failings are taken to mean that one is not practicing rationality as a consistent virtue, and therefore they end up being indicative of an ethical failing.

Steve,

You're right. Making a fallacious argument on some occasion is not the same as habitual or recurrent irrationality.

Ayn Rand had a tendency to assume that bad reasoning is deliberate. (If you take her essays on these subjects literally, neither "psychologizing," in her sense, nor "arguments from intimidation" can be done simply by mistake or inadvertently.)

Leonard Peikoff has gone much further. From his point of view, one can't produce an arbitrary assertion by mistake.

And so on.

Robert Campbell