CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Ad Hominem [HD]

In this video, Paul Henne (Duke University) describes the ad hominem fallacy, which is an informal fallacy that arises when someone attacks the person making the argument rather than their argument. He also describes the four subtypes of this fallacy.

Help us caption & translate this video!

[jfiles]

You spelled hypocrisy wrong; therefore, your argument is invalid.

[humbertojimmy]

It's worth adding that the oposite scenario is also possible (even though i rarely see it mentioned). "Ad hominem" simply means "directed at the person (in question)", and that can be both in a bad or good way. Both constitute a fallacy.
If Brad makes a claim and i step in to say that "Brad is an awesome guy", that in no way should influence anyone into taking Brad's claim seriously, although many times it does.

[SonOfMan-YT]

The non-use of Critical Thinking / Logic is actually the biggest problem on the planet.

[Ozekat]

Lol, well you just summed up the root cause of why arguments on the Internet are such failures...Good thing I learned all these lessons _(100% sound)_ many decades ago before the Internet! But yes, thank you for posting it all the same as it is very needed!

[rafaelll.]

Please make videos about all logical fallacies! I beg you!

[julianday]

one of the reasons i feel like i'm losing my mind, all the time, is that in the spirit of self-improvement i decided to read up on critical thinking whereas so much public discourse completely ignores the rules. for instance, it is extremely common to critique what someone says based on who they are instead of what they are saying; at times it feels like that's all Twitter is!

[knucklescapricorn]

This is a great video! I only knew ad hominem arguments to be of the abusive sub-type. I was not aware that ignoring someone's argument because they may have a conflict of interest, may be a hypocrite, or may share the same opinion as an unlikeable person, constituted as ad hominem arguments as well. Thank you!

[andrewandrew]

Interesting that the word "bombastic" is in itself bombastic. Autological is the term, I believe.

[aDayInTheMindOfMe]

It's hard for me to believe this has to be explained, I always thought people did it because they got caught with their pants down.

As in, "Earth is the best planet"

A logical counter is "Do you know about every other planet?"

"Shut up, you're stupid".

I just figured people realized at that point that they had no basis for their beliefs/statements, but had too much pride to say they were wrong.

[notnotpj]

the fact we need a video to explain that personal standing doesn't change the validity of the argument makes me worry about what people are being taught these days.

[serialced]

From Schopenhauer himself: "A last trick is to become personal, insulting, rude, as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand, and that you are going to come off worst. It consists in passing from the subject of dispute, as from a lost game, to the disputant himself, and in some way attacking his person. It may be called the argumentum ad personam, to distinguish it from the argumentum ad hominem, which passes from the objective discussion of the subject pure and simple to the statements or admissions which your opponent has made in regard to it. "

What youre talking about is NOT an ad hominem but rather an ad personam.

[siamiam]

good video, thanks to All involved for making and sharing it  

[tomcampbell]

Wow who would have thought that calling someone and a group of people a bunch of idiots would backfire in a certain election?

[BrandonAEnglish]

I feel like it's a joke that we have to call these occurrences "ad hominem" attacks, because every single time I try to point out that someone is doing it, they get their under all twisted in knots because they don't understand what it means and think I'm just trying to talk down to them. Of course, they also don't take the time to understand what it means. I find it hard to introduce any of my different viewpoints to about 99.99% of people due to this very thing. The US media is rife with the education that "to attack those who don't follow the mainstream teachings or ways of doing things is cool---attack them mercilessly."

[jdprettynails]

I frequently use the hypocrisy angle when arguing with my boyfriend.
Him: Why didn't you do the dishes, or vacuum the floor?
Me: Yeah well, you didn't do the laundry or take out the rubbish!

[shaunlikescheese]

I feel a lot of "social justice warriors" need to brush up on these fallacy in particular.


Fantastic video by the way!

[thalldvthox]

Good video. An issue arises when the argument becomes connected with some aspect of their character, that you may be ambiguously describing (as a "total jerk"). Say Vlad is arguing that he should get a cat. But you've personally witnessed expressions of his mentality towards cats, and have seen him abuse and not properly care for them. Communicating your concept of that aspect of his mentality with "total jerk" is indescript, but not necessarily irrelevant.

[yozonssales]

At 5:01, premise 2 is the same as the conclusion. Perhaps it should read, "Killing sentient beings for food is immoral."

[ChipArgyle]

I had no idea there was more than one kind. That was very interesting and informative.

[random]

Great Video, I discovered this fallacy a couple years ago when I realised it is to my disadvantage to distrust a persons argument just because I don´t like that person. I am interested as to behaivioral ideas when you face abusive use of this fallacy and a third party falling for it. Do you play the dirty game? probably a questions of morality...