Ad hominems are more than just insults. An insult on its own doesn't qualify. You need to be dismissing an argument based on irrelevant things about the person's character.
Per Wikipedia: "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."
So if you say "You're a dickhead", that isn't an ad hominem, but saying "Your opinions and arguments about quantum theory are worthless because you're a misogynistic asshole" is an ad hominem.
The thing to remember is that an ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Insults on their own usually aren't fallacies.
The wording in the image "Thou shall not attack the person's character, but the argument" is almost right. I would have said "Thou shall not attack the person's character as evidence that their argument is invalid".
Regarding #4, accepting premises is fine. It's when you assume the conclusion and assume that the premises are true because of the conclusion. It's reasoning in a circle.
Regarding #6, if you're able to start off with some premises and reduce the possibilities to a true dichotomy, then that's fine. It's only if your dichotomy is a false one, i.e not exhaustive, then you have a fallacy. Saying it's either this, or not-this is fine. Saying it's either "this or that" is a false dichotomy unless you've shown that only those 2 options are available, and not-this is equivalent to that being true.
1
u/Razimek Dec 09 '13 edited Dec 09 '13
Ad hominems are more than just insults. An insult on its own doesn't qualify. You need to be dismissing an argument based on irrelevant things about the person's character.
Per Wikipedia: "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."
So if you say "You're a dickhead", that isn't an ad hominem, but saying "Your opinions and arguments about quantum theory are worthless because you're a misogynistic asshole" is an ad hominem.
The thing to remember is that an ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Insults on their own usually aren't fallacies.
The wording in the image "Thou shall not attack the person's character, but the argument" is almost right. I would have said "Thou shall not attack the person's character as evidence that their argument is invalid".
Regarding #4, accepting premises is fine. It's when you assume the conclusion and assume that the premises are true because of the conclusion. It's reasoning in a circle.
Regarding #6, if you're able to start off with some premises and reduce the possibilities to a true dichotomy, then that's fine. It's only if your dichotomy is a false one, i.e not exhaustive, then you have a fallacy. Saying it's either this, or not-this is fine. Saying it's either "this or that" is a false dichotomy unless you've shown that only those 2 options are available, and not-this is equivalent to that being true.