Ad hominem

[TheVisionofEr]

Opinions, like so-called knowledge, must come from some hominem or being.

Unlike opinions, actual knowledge must originate in the real world. Knowledge may be held by someone but does not originate in the knower.

I mean, if I say, that is a bird, responding to someone who asks what the noise is, is it an opinion or knowledge? What I'm saying is there is an unstable spectrum. Depending on our level of certainty. Even in merely "objective" matters there is the problem of "justification."

The whole subject matter is not given to the senses. Which was Hume's point about causality. It goes as much for any distinction between mere opinion or imagination and knowledge by whatever standard of acceptance of the data.

[TheVisionofEr]

That someone has an opinion is evidence.

Nope.

An opinion is only "evidence" they happen to have an opinion, not that the opinion itself is attached to any evidence.

...the notion that the object is wholly independant of the subject...

It is. Only the opinion is dependent on the subject. The truth, reality, is what provides grounds for us to think the opinion has any merit.

This is obviously the case...

Nope. What's obvious is that without an objective external reality from which to draw evidence, no opinion has any merit at all.

Opinions, like so-called knowledge, must come from some hominem or being.

Hitler had an opinion. A very strong one, that Jews deserved to die. So did Stalin. He thought Kulaks should be rounded up and shipped off to the gulag. So did the Emperor Nero. His opinion was that Christians made nice human torches to light the streets. The Grand Inquisitor had an opinion; that heretics should be tortured. So did Osama Bin Laden, who was totally of the opinion that running planes into the World Trade Centre was a morally virtuous action. They were all hominids, and their opinions were rubbish.

You don't think you can detect the difference between them and anybody else? All opinions are equal, you think?

To regard something as knowledge is an opinion or act of some being. If a being regards themselves as knowing something I call that evidence for its being true. There is no other way knowing can happen, or knowledge be had (by a being.)



It's like a scale. The scale reads out it's opinion. 5 units of weight. That is evidence. However, the scale may be flawed by design or broken. Each being is a scale.


These matters are split in our time between morals or values on the one side and facts or data on the other. The fact value distinction regulates our approach and posits the opinion or knowledge that values can not be determined scientificaly. Since they are not scientific they are not knowledge on the view now controlling all life on the earth manifested in global STEM or technological science.

I'n Plato we can see the attempt to ascend from opinion to knowledge in a freer and more elevated form than is now possible. Opinions about what Dike or Justice is for example in the Politea or "Republic." However, we need some prepatory knowledge to awaken ourselves to the prejudices we have inherited in order to really bring the issues into the clear.

[Immanuel Can]

To regard something as knowledge is an opinion or act of some being. If a being regards themselves as knowing something I call that evidence for its being true.

Think again, then.

There are many things a person can hold as an "opinion," and regard as true, but which are not.

For centuries, physicians followed Aristotle's theories; these were incorrect, and the result was that we have a ton of evidence not merely in the many deaths that resulted, but also in the studies of anatomy conducted in the 18th Century, which blew those "opinions" to pieces.

So many "beings" both "regarded" Aristotelianism "as true," and made that their "opinion." But they were dead wrong -- or rather, their patients were dead because they were wrong.

Opinions are only good if they conform to reality, and the only way we know if they do is the evidence that can be provided to make the case that they do.

[commonsense]

Opinions, like so-called knowledge, must come from some hominem or being.

Unlike opinions, actual knowledge must originate in the real world. Knowledge may be held by someone but does not originate in the knower.

I mean, if I say, that is a bird, responding to someone who asks what the noise is, is it an opinion or knowledge? What I'm saying is there is an unstable spectrum. Depending on our level of certainty. Even in merely "objective" matters there is the problem of "justification."

I see what you’re saying here. The bird is an opinion, a conclusion drawn from the noise. We can’t be certain it’s a bird until we see it. So, the bird is an objective thing only when it is justified.

The whole subject matter is not given to the senses. Which was Hume's point about causality. It goes as much for any distinction between mere opinion or imagination and knowledge by whatever standard of acceptance of the data.

Unlike Hume, I would say that while opinion does not have to be justified, knowledge must necessarily be not only justifiable but justified as well.

[commonsense]

To regard something as knowledge is an opinion or act of some being. If a being regards themselves as knowing something I call that evidence for its being true. There is no other way knowing can happen, or knowledge be had (by a being.)

Yes, it is an opinion that something is knowledge but once its been verified, it becomes knowledge. As an opinion need not be justified, an opinion cannot be evidence of anything.

[Scott Mayers]

There seems to be an element of confusion here.

Whilst it is true that many use the accusation ad hominem when they suffer a personal attack or some insulting remark.
There is a strict difference between an insult and an ad hominem.

If a person says something stupid and are met with insults, that is one thing.
If they are told that they could not possibly be correct because they are - a catholic, or an American, or only a psychologist and not a real scientist; or just a kid, or just a road sweeper, as those kinds of people could not know the answer RATHER THAN addressing the argument itself. Then that is an ad hominem.
An insult is not an logical fallacy. Saying an argument is invalidated by reason of some personal character or experience, that is logically false.

I was pointing to this early on. But I'm guessing it gets some people something to talk about on subtle differences. All the non-deductive fallacies are conditioned upon particular common flaws. The reason the label "ad hominem" is still used is to refer to the distinction. But this particular fallacy is still an 'insult' among other forms of insult that also gets involved. The point of naming and using it in its Latin was to remind us that the function of a debate should be focused on the argument rather than 'to the person's personality or character.

They DO become relevant in the same way one might be protected in court for their 5th Amendment right not to say something that might be used against them. But should the person/side 'open' character or personality as something relevant, this can then permit challenging it.

Example:

"How can you say that I would do such a crime? I've never done anything to harm anyone once."

While the person might have been protected from ad hominem type challenges in court normally, the person stating the above when they've had a prior set of convictions can become opened to attack without committing the fallacy we deem abusive or unfair.

Motive is also relevant in other contexts that demonstrate hypocrisy unless one is arguing as a third party removed from the issue at hand but arguing without particular personal choice.

[Sculptor]

There seems to be an element of confusion here.

Whilst it is true that many use the accusation ad hominem when they suffer a personal attack or some insulting remark.
There is a strict difference between an insult and an ad hominem.

If a person says something stupid and are met with insults, that is one thing.
If they are told that they could not possibly be correct because they are - a catholic, or an American, or only a psychologist and not a real scientist; or just a kid, or just a road sweeper, as those kinds of people could not know the answer RATHER THAN addressing the argument itself. Then that is an ad hominem.
An insult is not an logical fallacy. Saying an argument is invalidated by reason of some personal character or experience, that is logically false.

I was pointing to this early on. But I'm guessing it gets some people something to talk about on subtle differences. All the non-deductive fallacies are conditioned upon particular common flaws. The reason the label "ad hominem" is still used is to refer to the distinction. But this particular fallacy is still an 'insult' among other forms of insult that also gets involved. The point of naming and using it in its Latin was to remind us that the function of a debate should be focused on the argument rather than 'to the person's personality or character.

They DO become relevant in the same way one might be protected in court for their 5th Amendment right not to say something that might be used against them. But should the person/side 'open' character or personality as something relevant, this can then permit challenging it.

Example:

"How can you say that I would do such a crime? I've never done anything to harm anyone once."

While the person might have been protected from ad hominem type challenges in court normally, the person stating the above when they've had a prior set of convictions can become opened to attack without committing the fallacy we deem abusive or unfair.

Motive is also relevant in other contexts that demonstrate hypocrisy unless one is arguing as a third party removed from the issue at hand but arguing without particular personal choice.

When actual physical evidence or witness statements are weak the character of a person is often brought to bear upon the case. This is the epitome of an ad hominem. But the legal profession is not immune to logical fallacies; in fact it often relies on them. One reason at least that prisons in the US have dark races over-represented. Prejudice, ad hominem by virtue of race.

[TheVisionofEr]

To regard something as knowledge is an opinion or act of some being. If a being regards themselves as knowing something I call that evidence for its being true.

Think again, then.

There are many things a person can hold as an "opinion," and regard as true, but which are not.

For centuries, physicians followed Aristotle's theories; these were incorrect, and the result was that we have a ton of evidence not merely in the many deaths that resulted, but also in the studies of anatomy conducted in the 18th Century, which blew those "opinions" to pieces.

So many "beings" both "regarded" Aristotelianism "as true," and made that their "opinion." But they were dead wrong -- or rather, their patients were dead because they were wrong.

Opinions are only good if they conform to reality, and the only way we know if they do is the evidence that can be provided to make the case that they do.

The views that are in your passionate opinion now true or conforming to reality are evidenced first by those beings who hold them true. No other way is possible.

Now, the difficulty is that the further one pushes towards experimental claims of the identity of "success" and of prediction, psycological conditions, since something can be predictive for the wrong reasons (as it were), the less we grasp that all discussion is normative and thus directly about humans and their taste. Even in the extreme, there must be a being that has the view that there is prediction and a accepted data that corisponds to it.

The matter is very obvious. Only beings such as us can give evidence at all. Read your Hume. And your Plato/Socrates.

Now, consider the other extreme. The region where experiment is almost mute. As is the soul almost mute in the success criterion. What is Justice? The conduct of humans. What is beauty. And other subject matters than these three are obviously part and parcel with the hominem or rational speech and understanding.

[Immanuel Can]

The views that are in your passionate opinion...

Heh. I have no "passion" in this opinion.

Don't try to have a "passionate" opinion. It's better to have a true one. And then show it's true, but providing reasons and evidence.

Nothing else counts.

[Eodnhoj7]

The views that are in your passionate opinion...

Heh. I have no "passion" in this opinion.

Don't try to have a "passionate" opinion. It's better to have a true one. And then show it's true, but providing reasons and evidence.

Nothing else counts.

Argumentation is inseperable from the observer(s) as what is presented by the observer(s) is a variation from (a) singular point(s) of view. Truth is instrinsically linked with (a) point(s) of view.

[Immanuel Can]

Argumentation is inseperable from the observer(s) as what is presented by the observer(s) is a variation from (a) singular point(s) of view. Truth is instrinsically linked with (a) point(s) of view.

If all there is to say is that this argument, this one right here, is "inseparable" from you, and only comes from your "singlular point of view," then it's worth precisely nothing...even to you, since it will not serve you in any contract with the real world.

You're saying that for you, ad hominems look just fine; and for everybody else, maybe they don't. So we can take your claim at face value, and ignore it. It impacts no one else.

[Eodnhoj7]

Argumentation is inseperable from the observer(s) as what is presented by the observer(s) is a variation from (a) singular point(s) of view. Truth is instrinsically linked with (a) point(s) of view.

If all there is to say is that this argument, this one right here, is "inseparable" from you, and only comes from your "singlular point of view," then it's worth precisely nothing...even to you, since it will not serve you in any contract with the real world.

You're saying that for you, ad hominems look just fine; and for everybody else, maybe they don't. So we can take your claim at face value, and ignore it. It impacts no one else.

"All" arguments are inseperable from a point of view as the argument is the angle of one phenomenon derive from many phenomena. As subject to "my" point of view the argument is legitimate as one angle of being, thus is both a variation of myself and being as a whole.

As to the "fineness" of ad hominem, the ad hominem even existing is subject to a fallacy according to traditional logic as the ad hominem is wrong because the ad hominem is wrong. It is circular reasoning, as well as all other fallacies. The fallacies are wrong relative to those which believe they are wrong, my stance is not subject to them nor my stance as a variation of the whole is subject to them.

The fallacies only exist towards those which say they exist, they apply self referentially to those who claim they exist thus are self negating at multiple levels.

[Immanuel Can]

...the ad hominem is wrong because the ad hominem is wrong. It is circular reasoning...

That's not why the ad hominem is wrong.

It's wrong, firstly, because it's irrelevant. That's the biggest one. And it's wrong secondly, because it's childish and petulant, reflection the kind of childish logic that says, "Yeah? Well, you're a dumb dumb, so I don't have to listen to you."

[Eodnhoj7]

...the ad hominem is wrong because the ad hominem is wrong. It is circular reasoning...

That's not why the ad hominem is wrong.

It's wrong, firstly, because it's irrelevant.
That is following a slippery slope fallacy. It is wrong because it is irrelevant.
It is irrelevant because of "childishness and petulancy". It is "childishness and petulancy" because of y. Without slippery slope your stance is circular: John's argument is irrelevant because it is irrelevant.

That's the biggest one. And it's wrong secondly, because it's childish and petulant, reflection the kind of childish logic that says, "Yeah? Well, you're a dumb dumb, so I don't have to listen to you."

Your argument is full of the very same fallacies it condemns.

[Immanuel Can]

Your argument is full of the very same fallacies it condemns.

That you think so tells me you don't understand ad hominems at all.