How to Tell the Truth--Part 2 of "X"--Ad Hominem

This is the second of my continuing writings on the subject of cognitive biases and logical fallacies. My hope is that better understanding these tools of manipulation will increase the reader's confidence and reduce the the reader's angst.

Today I want to focus upon one of the most common and destructive of all logical fallacies--the fallacy of ad hominem. Ad hominem is a diversion tactic commonly used by politicians, religious leaders, narcissists and other professional manipulators of all types, and unfortunately often with great success.

Ad hominem is Latin for "to the man". Essentially, it involves attacking one's opponent personally rather than addressing his or her argument directly. It's an attempt to discredit the argument by discrediting the arguer. As such, it's lazy, illogical and divisive. The implicit though unsound reasoning behind ad hominem is: Because the speaker is offensive/evil, we need not respond to or consider what he/she says.

For instance, suppose I'm debating Adolph Hitler regarding whether or not Jews are human or subhuman. Adolph begins by stating "Jews are subhuman because 'x'".

However, rather than debating whether "x" is true or not or, if true, whether the conclusion that Jews are subhuman rationally follows from "x", I instead respond by saying something like, "Adolph, that's a very unkind and racist thing to say. You're nothing but a xenophobic prick."

As personally satisfying as my response to Adolph may be, it's an obvious example of ad hominem--attempting to discredit the argument by discrediting its proponent. I never addressed Adolph's argument but instead sought to divert my audience's attention from it by noting that Adolph is a xenophobic prick.

The problem with ad hominem is that even xenophobic pricks can be right in their arguments. Or, said another way, being a xenophobic prick doesn't necessarily make one wrong.

Adolph was demonstrably wrong in his contention that Jews are subhuman, but I never proved it. I could have proven it by offering up evidence from a number of sources--genetic evidence, anthropological evidence, cultural evidence, etc. But instead I just called my opponent names. Slapping our opponents with labels (racist, xenophobic, fascists, communist, liberal, right wing, left wing, etc.) rather than addressing their arguments does not a valid refutation make.

We see examples of ad hominem everywhere today. And all the time. We see it in our politics. We see it in our religious arguments (for instance, Christians are fond of discrediting Mohammed as a pedophile, as if that somehow proves his "revelation" to be false, while many Muslims commonly insist that Jesus was a bastard and couldn't therefore have been divine) . We even see it in our science.

As you read or listen to the the news or social media media today, see how often you can identify instances of ad hominem. You'll be amazed!