Introduction
An argument is used to support conclusion. An argument uses a set of facts or assumptions. An argument is a reason or reasons offered for or against something.
A set of facts or assumptions (proposition) upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn, is called premise.
An argument that is logically inconsistent and fails to create a compelling case for its conclusion might contain error in reasoning, or fallacy (From the Latin fallacia (“deceit,” “trick,” or “fraud”).
An argument that is not supported by and is incompatible with logic when analyzed with care is called fallacious argument (deceptive argument).
Personal Attack
A Personal Attack, also called ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the person presenting the claim or argument.
Description (Logic)
This type of "argument" has the following form:
- Person A makes claim X.
- Person B makes an attack on person A.
- Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why a Personal Attack (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made or the quality of the argument being made.
Example 1
Linda: You should stop drinking because it’s hurting your professional career, endangering people when you drink and drive, and destroying your relationship with your family.
Paul: I’ve seen you drink a few too many on occasion yourself !
Discussion
Linda’s argument is well reasoned, with premises offering strong support for her conclusion that Paul should stop drinking. Paul rejects this argument by noting that Linda sometimes drinks too much herself. Even if Paul’s claim is true, it is irrelevant to Linda’s point.
Paul has resorted to attacking Linda personally rather than arguing logically – a clear example of Personal Attack fallacy.
Example 2
"Candidate Sandra’s proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2002."
Example 3
"Bill’s argument on LeBron James' failures in the NBA finals aren't worth reading, everyone knows he is a "LeBron" hater."
Discussion
In both of those examples, what is being criticized is the person, not what they are currently arguing.
Personal Attack usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but apparent character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument.
This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.
The fact that a person does something wrong or behaves improperly on one occasion does not necessarily mean that he or she does wrong or behaves inappropriately all the time. A critique of person’s character should not prevent further examination of the arguments at hand.
If someone is known to be untrustworthy, immoral, or unethical, that fact will reduce their credibility. It won't, however, prove that their claim is false; neither can it alter the soundness of any logical argument he or she may make. This is made quite clear by the following example:
"Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he was caught in abuse of public office and taxpayers’ money a few years ago, so his claim is false."
Remember:
Those who resort to a Personal Attack fallacy in a political debate generally aim to divert people's attention away from the primary issue being debated.
The tactic they use is
- To evade responsibility; or
- To avoid dispute during which a fact or information they do not want other people to know about may be revealed; or
- Because they are unscrupulous and dishonest opportunists determined to win at all costs.
In Conclusion
- Public officials who deliberately use fallacy believe that you are not smart enough to detect the techniques they use to deceive or mislead you.
- Use logic and critical thinking to prevent dishonourable politicians from making a fool out of you.
- The more critical thinkers, the better the politicians running our government and the better the quality of life for everyone.
Missing the Point
Two Wrongs Make a Right
Appeal to Fear
Personal Attack
With files from various sources
Related Articles, Links and Materials
Currently not available
