I intensely dislike accusations of ad hominem from people who don’t understand what ad hominem is.
Hello professor, I read your blogs from time to time getting different perspectives on important issues. The recent article about Krauss, there is allot of ad hominem, is that a good strategy to sway people towards a viewpoint, instead of arguing the specific points ?
He is referring to this post. It would be ad hominem to say “Krauss is a harasser, because he was a physic professor.” It is not ad hominem to compile a collection of observations and assessments by his peers that directly corroborate the accusation.
The idea that presenting evidence is an ad hominem fallacy is a defense used by people who want to suppress the evidence.
I find it interesting that the one post on Coyne’s blog went missing. One wonders why. This blog post linked back to that post and quoted an important section plus adds more reflection on Coyne’s part about Krauss:
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2018/10/08/dean-recommends-lawrence-krausss-dismissal-from-arizona-state-university-krauss-is-appealing/
We shall see if it disappears mysteriously, like so many tut-tutting commenters over the years.
Another blogpost by Coyne linked back to the missing post and others:
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2018/10/22/lawrence-krauss-to-retire-from-arizona-state-university-after-sexual-misconduct-allegations/
Oh wait another one here calls back to the 3-10-18 missing link and has other some interesting stuff discussed:
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2019/07/14/if-pinker-is-bad-i-must-be-worse/
Yeah, it’s an endlessly frustrating ‘mistake’ that I see constantly from conservatives.
An ad hominem argument takes the form “You are dumb and therefore you are wrong.” It is not an ad hominem to argue “You are wrong, and therefore you are dumb.” It might or might not be accurate, but either way it is not that specific thing.
Idiot can’t even spell “a lot” — they’re not worth your time, or the energy you waste disliking them.
From the second article cited @2:
There were, of course, calls for Pinker to issue not just an explanation, but an apology. Shades of the Cultural Revolution!
This is disgracefully stupid even for Coyne. Does he have ANY CLUE what the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was like? Just read the first chapter of [the Western version of] The Three-Body Problem for a helpful hint. It was far worse — ALLOT worse! — than people demanding apologies.
Raging Bee @5: Remember, he’s the guy who thought he was living in a communist dictatorship just because the University of Chicago instituted Safe Spaces on campus that he didn’t even have to go to, while ranting on his blog where he bans anyone who talks about things he doesn’t approve of. The man has no sense of irony or proportion.
It would be ad hominem to say “Krauss is a harasser, therefor he is a bad physicist.” The harassment is (mostly) irrelevant to his abilities as a physicist. It is not ad hominem to say “Krauss is a harasser, and therefor we have reason to suspect that his commentary on ethics are self serving”, especially if his commentary on ethical behavior turns out to be supportive of harassment.
“You’re a liar of evil intent” is never an ad hominem, though it may be untrue. Dismissing the arguments of known liars of evil intent out of hand is the logical and proper thing to do in a world of limited time and resources. Let us remember the best blog post of all time:
“Fibbers’ forecasts are worthless. Case after miserable case after bloody case we went through, I tell you, all of which had this moral. Not only that people who want a project will tend to make inaccurate projections about the possible outcomes of that project, but about the futility of attempts to “shade” downward a fundamentally dishonest set of predictions. If you have doubts about the integrity of a forecaster, you can’t use their forecasts at all. Not even as a “starting point”.”
https://delong.typepad.com/sdj/the-d-squared-digest-one-minute-mba.html
Well I think the point your correspondent is trying to make is that it does not follow that because Krauss is a habitual sexual harasser, whatever arguments he or contributors to his collection make about the current state of the scientific enterprise are invalid. The relationship between Krauss’s depraved nature and whatever the content of the book may be — and both you and Rebecca Watson say you haven’t read it — is not apparent. So no, I don’t agree that the writer doesn’t know what ad hominem means, and I think you would need a more developed argument to show that it doesn’t apply in this case.
Sorry, it’s perfectly legitimate to draw attention to what is not likeable about Krauss, but that does not constitute engagement with whatever arguments he’s trying to make. I can imagine ways in which it might undermine some of what I’m guessing the book is saying, but you’d have to read the book first and then spell it out.
And I should have added, Robert, that Krauss may be a liar but a) he didn’t write most of the book and b) even so, unless he’s making unsupported assertions, you would still need to evaluate whatever evidence he actually presents. So calling someone a liar is an ad hominem attack unless we’re being asked to rely on their unsupported assertions.
Ad hominem arguments can take many forms but the basic idea is rejecting an argument because of the character of the arguer.
Depending on the form and the context of the situation, not all ad hominem arguments are fallacious. https://www.academia.edu/14905882/Ad_Hominem_Arguments
Sigh…It’s simple…once again:
Not ad hominem – You are wrong and an a-hole.
Ad hominem – You are wrong BECAUSE you are an a-hole
I think ad hominem isn’t so bad in the first place. Yes, it is absolutely a fallacy when you’re trying to evaluate an argument based on logic. But most of us aren’t Descartes trying to figure out all of reality from first principles, we put our trust in other people to examine, discover, and report things to us. In which case isn’t knowing that someone is habitually a bad source extremely relevant to knowing whether to trust them? Sure it ultimately doesn’t prove them wrong, but it seems reasonable to wait for a decent source on something before you bother considering it in detail, or you are going to spend your whole life meticulously disproving known charlatans with nothing insightful to show for it.
jpjackson@11:
“Ad hominem arguments can take many forms but the basic idea is rejecting an argument because of the character of the arguer.”
Depends on the argument. If the argument is something that has no bearing on a person’s character, then it would be an ad hominem. If the person’s character is relevant to the argument, such as an argument over ethics, pointing out that the person has a history of ethics violations is not an ad hominem.
Just add hominy.
Sure, sure, just don’t expect me to sit through a homily about hominy.
@microraptor14
Your ethics example would be a “circumstantial ad hominem” argument. It relies on the inconsistency between a person’s claim and their actions.
For example, your financial advisor tells you to buy stock in X company but they are in the process of selling off their stock in X company. You therefore conclude they are a person of bad character on the basis of the inconsistency between their claim and their actions and you should reject their claim.
It is still an ad hominem argument, but it is not a fallacious one because the character of the arguer is relevant to your evaluation of their position.
@Raging Bee: You see the same kind of argument from people who say things like “George Carlin wouldn’t be able to tell jokes in today’s cancel culture” – which is pure ignorance of the real circumstances Carlin worked under (https://thecomicscomic.com/2014/03/25/comedians-in-courthouses-getting-cuffed-lenny-bruce-and-george-carlin-december-1962/)
And now this platform is losing comments I’ve posted again. Not sure why, hoping PZ can look into it as soon as it’s convenient…
This is par for the course. I mean, in the last few years, how many right-wing figures have threatened someone with slander/libel just for accurately reporting what they said?
Raging Bee @19
I’ve learned to always copy my text before hitting send. Sometimes I have to log out, refresh the screen and then log back in again because reasons. The text box with my comment is still there, but I’m prompted to log out. That’s been going on for years. The reason I refresh the browser before logging back in is that if I don’t I go into an account settings page instead of a comments box. Upon logging back in I paste the copied comment text then send “post comment”.
More rarely there is a network (timeout???) issue that erases my comment. I’ve found that sometimes it will still post, which may be the source of multiple identical comments. Usually the comment vaporizes so I learned to copy my comment before attempting to post it.
If this is what you are experiencing I doubt PZ can do anything about it. Maybe a wonky glitch in WordPress or whatever. Just do the best practice of copying your comment within the box before attempting to post. Losing a comment is surely frustrating as you then must recreate your comment from scratch.
Also there is someone who comes a bit unwound when something similar has happened here. They might attribute it to something sinister. No, it has happened to me also and it’s an innocent glitch IMO.
FWIW I use the mobile version of Firefox, but I assume it’s not my setup, but something in the site coding. I don’t know if it happens on other FTB blogs or WordPress sites. It’s annoying but trivial to copy your work so it is not lost, though I sometimes forget to do that.
jpjackson, you have it backwards.
“It is still an ad hominem argument, but it is not a fallacious one because the character of the arguer is relevant to your evaluation of their position.”
It’s not whether the claim fits the term, it’s whether the term fits the claim.
Specifically, “ad hominem” is shorthand for argumentum ad hominem, which in turn specifically refers to a type of informal fallacy. It does not mean just its literal ‘to the person’ transliteration.
Informal fallacies are not formal fallacies, what they are is fallacies of relevance.
(The person is not the proposition)
In short, if it’s not fallacious by virtue of irrelevance to the argument at hand, then it’s not “ad hominem” in that sense.
Obviously, any expressed opinion about some person is ‘to the person’, but if it’s just opinion and not an actual argument, then it’s not “ad hominem” in that specific sense.
I think here in terms of the more general genetic fallacy. Yet given the track record of some of these bozos, those writing pieces in the not yet published book that we know already by their output, I would consider the sources. Coyne for instance is an antiwoke polemicist sporting a serious bias and blindspots. Neither he nor Pinker for instance have shown they have any working knowledge of critical theory to understand its nuances nor differentiate it from the various forms of poststructuralism or more recent gender or antiracism (vs CRT) stuff. Coyne calls himself classical liberal (not far from libertarian) on occasion and feigns being on the left though he gravitates heavily toward right wing sources and talking points (Lowry/McWhorter, Sullivan, The Free Press, etc). Pinker’s recent books like Enlightenment Now read in places like a Cato piece. He flubbed Adorno and Horkheimer in that one…badly. I’m assuming the critical theories/pomo hobby horse is going to be featured in the coming book. Boghossian at least has heard of Habermas, I think, but that does him no good. That would be the same Habermas who cut his teeth in his younger years taking part in an ill thought out early science war between critical theory (Frankfurt style) and critical rationalism (Popper et al misconstrued sadly as positivism). Boghossian is not a serious philosopher. Not someone who does videos on Haitians eating the pets. Nope!
I think it telling that Jordan Peterson is part of this book. He should be a target of such a book if it were a serious work, not a contributor.
The war on science is coming from the right wing and amplified by dingbats like Joe Rogan and Coyne’s hero Bill Maher. This book has the worst timing ever given the current situation in the US (eg RFK Jr on MAHA). They should scrap it.
A surprising number of commenters here don’t seem to know what an ad hominem is, what a fallacy is, or how to look anything up to learn more about it.
Maybe it’s just the Internet effect. I’ve recently learned that anyone I don’t like is a shill and a grifter on the Internet. Silly me – I thought they were only Nazis! I’ve recently learned that “roast” is the new synonym for “insult” on the Internet. I’m looking forward to tomorrow’s misuse lesson . . .
jpjackson–
Not an ad hominem. It only looks that way because of the arrangement of premises and inferences. The logic should read:
[1] Premise: My financial advisor has recommended I buy stock X
[2] Premise: My financial advisor is currently selling stock X
→ [3] Inference: My financial advisor is not following their own recommendation
→ [4] Inference: My financial advisor should not be trusted
It would be an ad hominem to say, “My financial advisor should not be trusted because they follow a rival sports team whose supporters I find obnoxious.” The financial honesty of the advisor is critical to trusting their recommendations and therefore relevant to the logic chain. Their favourite sports team is not.
And while I would certainly question the advice and seek independent opinions, [4] does not necessarily follow from [3]. The advisor might be selling off an excellent investment because they need cash on hand for a medical emergency / house deposit / parent moving into aged care / divorce settlement.
(Exception: that team is the New England Patriots)
chrislawson @26
The Patriots are fine now. Belichick and Brady are gone. Not fond of the owner, but I will now conditionally root for the Patriots against a despised team. The team to hate now is wherever Aaron Rodgers lands, which sadly is looking more and more to be the Steelers. I hated them when Ben Roethlisberger was there so it won’t be hard to return to that hate again. Roethlisberger‘s alleged off-field sexual misbehavior made me hate him and the Steelers. Aaron Rodgers is kinda indirectly topical given the MAHA attack on science which is more important than what that yet to be published book appears to cover.
Seems like the argument here is over whether being a sexually abusive creep is relevant to commenting on culture. The people calling this an ad hominem appear to think that the pattern of behaviour is not relevant to other cultural commentry, so bringing it up is an ad hominem. He’s talking about science culture, not how to interact with people, so they’re separate.
Personally i agree that his past behaviour is very relevant. It shows how he thinks we should interact with other people when we have power over them, it shows how he thinks society should be ordered. For example look at the discussion on if we should define sex as a rigid binary; someone who sees women as lesser beings who exist for men’s sexual gratification is not going to be an impartial commenter here because they are motivated in seeing women as a separate group. So not an ad hominem
This fits very much in the general pattern of more regressive people not wanting to look at systemic causes, and wanting simple answers. Calling this an ad hominem is simpler than trying to explain why this sort of behaviour is relevant to wider social commentry
I wonder if there’s also an attitude of if someone being gay would not be relevant why would someone being an abuser be relevant? Because they see the two as similar sexual misconduct, breaking the proper patriarchal order. Obviously abusing people is very different to consensual gayness, but these are people who aren’t big on consent generally
(or the possibility this is just bad faith BS to distract from the fact that a whole bunch of these shits were happy to work with a known sexual abuser)
The gist of my earlier comment that vanished, was that this speling-chalinjed fool is accusing PZ and Rebecca of “ad-hominem” to deflect attention away from the substantive points they’d made: which was that Krauss was heading up a book full of reactionary grievance, phony cancel-culture persecution rubbish, racist complaints about DEI, transphobic complaints about pronouns and “biology,” and gods-know-what-else from the radical right’s anti-rational-grievance playbook. “Ad-hominem” is just an old standard reactionary deflection from points they can’t address or refute. PZ should probably take it as an admission that his accuser knows he’s right.
PS to Hemidactylus @21-2: Thanks for the tips, I’ll try to remember them next time I try to post a comment here. Or at least I’ll copy it to the clipboard just in case.
Another tip that works for me: when WordPress borks the comment, hit backspace and you should find the text in the comment submission box (i know, weird right?). CTRL-C the text, log out, log back in, CTRL-V into the comment box.
The way these informal logical fallacies are often abused and misunderstood is just frustrating. Logic should be taught in school like English and Biology.
I’m certainly guilty in my past of using (and likely abusing) the various formal logical fallacies in online argument.
Current argumentation and discourse is far more the realm of modern sophistry than it is logic. And while the tools of logic are useful in their place, it’s an increasingly small and irrelevant place.
It would be an ad homeniem to say that “Kraus is a bad man, therefore his arguments must be bad”. It is certainly not one one to say “Krauss is a bad man, and therefore I am uninterested in engaging with his writings any longer.” While it is unlikely, there might be actual correct arguments in that book. I doubt it, based on those authors involved who I know much about, and so I don’t see much benefit to myself in actually bothering to read the damned thing.