posted 05-27-2002 07:19 PM
I have been observing and reviewing some of the threads on all of the various forums debating chemtrails / conttrails. One thing that I have noted is that a large number of logical fallacies are often presented in the debates. Both sides are guilty of this, "Chemies," and "debunkers" alike. Everyone (including myself) is guilty of these at times. There are lots of different types of fallacies, but to me the most common, obnoxious, and ridiculous are those that involve an attack on the person presenting an argument.
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
There are three major forms of attacking the Person:
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the
person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practice what he preaches.
Ad hominem (abusive)
A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.
Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual's characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion.
In general, it is best to focus one's attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim.
Examples of ad hominem (abusive):
1) In a school debate, Bill claims that the President's economic plan is unrealistic. His opponent, a professor, retorts by saying "the freshman has his facts wrong."
2) "This theory about a potential cure for cancer has been introduced by a doctor who is a known lesbian feminist. I don't see why we should extend an invitation for her to speak at the World Conference on Cancer."
3) "Bill says that we should give tax breaks to companies. But he is untrustworthy, so it must be wrong to do that."
4) "That claim cannot be true. Dave believes it, and we know how morally repulsive he is."
5) "Bill claims that Jane would be a good treasurer. However I find Bill's behavior offensive, so I'm not going to vote for Jill."
6) "Jane says that drug use is morally wrong, but she is just a goody-two shoes Christian, so we don't have to listen to her."
7) Bill: "I don't think it is a good idea to cut social programs."
Jill: "Why not?"
Bill: "Well, many people do not get a fair start in life and hence need some help. After all, some people have wealthy parents and have it fairly easy. Others are born into poverty and..."
Jill: "You just say that stuff because you have a soft heart and an equally soft head."
8) You may argue that God doesn't exist, but you are just
following a fad.
9) Frederic Leighton to James McNeill Whistler: "My dear Whistler, you leave your pictures in such a sketchy, unfinished state. Why don't you ever finish them?"
James McNeill Whistler, in reply: "My dear Leighton, why do you ever begin yours?"
10) Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
Ad Hominem (Circumstantial)
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
3. Therefore claim X is false.
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
3. Therefore X is false.
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false."
There are times when it is prudent to suspicious of a person's claims, such as when it is evident that the claims are being biased by the person's interests. For example, if a tobacco company representative claims that tobacco does not cause cancer, it would be prudent to not simply accept the claim. This is because the person has a motivation to make the claim, whether it is true or not. However, the mere fact that the person has a motivation to make the claim does not make it false. For example, suppose a parent tells her son that sticking a fork in a light socket would be dangerous. Simply because she has a motivation to say this obviously does not make her claim false.
Examples of Circumstantial Ad Hominem
1) "She asserts that we need more military spending, but that is false, since she is only saying it because she is a Republican."
2) "I think that we should reject what Father Jones has to say about the ethical issues of abortion because he is a Catholic priest. After all, Father Jones is required to hold such views."
3) "Of course the Senator from Maine opposes a reduction in naval spending. After all, Bath Ironworks, which produces warships, is in Maine."
4) "Bill claims that tax breaks for corporations increases development. Of course, Bill is the CEO of a corporation."
5) We should discount what Premier Klein says about
taxation because he won't be hurt by the increase.
6) We should disregard Share B.C.'s argument because they
are being funded by the logging industry.
Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
Also Known as: "You Too Fallacy"
This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.
The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.
Examples of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
1) Bill: "Smoking is very unhealthy and leads to all sorts of problems. So take my advice and never start."
Jill: "Well, I certainly don't want to get cancer."
Bill: "I'm going to get a smoke. Want to join me Dave?"
Jill: "Well, I guess smoking can't be that bad. After all, Bill smokes."
2) Jill: "I think the gun control bill shouldn't be supported because it won't be effective and will waste money."
Bill: "Well, just last month you supported the bill. So I guess you're wrong now."
3) Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong!"
4) You say I shouldn't drink, but you haven't been sober for
more than a year.
Borrowed liberally from the following sources:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html
Hopefully, this post can help us all in learning to identify these fallacies and prevent ourselves from using them in our arguments 
------------------
________________
The
pachycephalsaurus's
most unique feature
was an 11" thick skull,
presumably for head
butting contests within
the herd.
[Edited 2 times, lastly by Bonehead9 on 05-27-2002]
Chemtrail Central Forum
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
posted 05-27-2002 07:19 PM
