Personal criticisms and logical fallacies

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Ben Finney:
> "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy at druid.net> writes:
> 
>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:38:50 +0100
>> "Alf P. Steinbach" <alfps at start.no> wrote:
>>> However, although in this particular case the Ad Hominems
>>> constituted logical fallacies, not all Ad Hominems are logical
>>> fallacies.
>> Yes they are.  Using the reputation of someone to prove or disprove
>> their claims is a logical fallacy.
> 
> The trouble is, the bulk of statements Alf is calling “ad hominem
> attack” are, if one actually reads them, a criticism of his person. Not
> intended as a connecting claim in an argument, but a claim *distinct
> from* the argument Alf is engaged in.

That's false. Happily anyone can check back, e.g. up-thread here.

Judging by the last few months the number of persons engaging in ad hominem 
attacks in this group is small, counted on one hand with possibly one finger 
from the other hand to help. They're very active. But happily, few.

However, in the other non-moderated groups I participate in the number of such 
persons is essentially *zero*, not counting sporadic visits from trolls.


> So they're *not intended* to prove or disprove the specific claims that
> immediately precede them. They're intended, at least partly, to provoke
> self-reflection on the part of the person criticised and, ideally, an
> improvement in behaviour.

And that's ad hominem, implying unacceptable behavior on my part, which if you 
could back up you'd cited.


> Failure to recognise a criticism as such, and instead repeatedly
> flinging the term “ad hominem” around as though it has any bearing, is
> an example of behaviour that could easily be improved, if only the
> person engaging in it would stop.


Cheers & hth.,

- Alf