what is the fallacy of the argumentum ad hominem
genetic fallacy
24525
reasoning is categorized among informal fallacies, more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance. "Ad hominem tu quoque" (literally: "You also") refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. In particular, if Source A criticizes the actions of Source B, a "tu quoque" response is that Source A has acted in the same way. This argument is invalid because it does not disprove the premise; if the premise is true then Source A may be a hypocrite, but this does not make the
Ad hominem
19774530
Tone policing Tone policing (also tone trolling, tone argument and tone fallacy) is an "ad hominem" and antidebate appeal based on genetic fallacy. It attempts to detract from the validity of a statement by attacking the tone in which it was presented rather than the message itself. In Bailey Poland's book, "Harassment, Abuse, and Violence Online", she suggests that tone policing is frequently aimed at women and attempts to derail or silence opponents who may be lower on the "privilege ladder". She writes that "In changing their tactics to criticizing how the women spoke instead of what the women said,
Tone policing
24525
reasoning is categorized among informal fallacies, more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance. "Ad hominem tu quoque" (literally: "You also") refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. In particular, if Source A criticizes the actions of Source B, a "tu quoque" response is that Source A has acted in the same way. This argument is invalid because it does not disprove the premise; if the premise is true then Source A may be a hypocrite, but this does not make the
Ad hominem
24527
bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument invalid; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source). The circumstantial fallacy does not apply where the source is taking a position by using a logical argument based solely on premises that are generally accepted. Where the source seeks to convince an audience of the truth of a premise by a claim of authority or by personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes
Ad hominem
11698191
a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits, and becomes an argumentum ad hominem. Politicians sometimes resort to “name calling” during political campaigns or public events with the intentions of gaining advantage over, or defending themselves from, an opponent or critic. Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" is not on its own an example of the "argumentum ad hominem" logical fallacy. The fallacy occurs only if personal attacks are employed to devalue a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker; personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument are not "ad hominem"
Name calling
1783868
Tom may or may not be English. The fact that Tom's argument was fallacious is not, in itself, sufficient proof that his conclusion is false. That one can invoke the argument from fallacy against a position does not prove one's own position either, as this would be an argument from fallacy itself, as is the case in Joe's argument. "Argumentum ad logicam" can be used as an "ad hominem" appeal: by impugning the opponent's credibility or good faith, it can be used to sway the audience by undermining the speaker rather than by addressing the speaker's argument. William Lycan identifies
Argument from fallacy
1723213
appeal to spite, where hatred for the disfavored party is assumed. Appeal to spite An appeal to spite (Latin: "argumentum ad odium") is a fallacy in which someone attempts to win favor for an argument by exploiting existing feelings of bitterness, spite, or schadenfreude in the opposing party. It is an attempt to sway the audience emotionally by associating a hate-figure with opposition to the speaker's argument. Fallacious ad hominem arguments which attack villains holding the opposing view are often confused with appeals to spite. The ad hominem can be a similar appeal to a negative emotion, but differs from
Appeal to spite
1723212
Appeal to spite An appeal to spite (Latin: "argumentum ad odium") is a fallacy in which someone attempts to win favor for an argument by exploiting existing feelings of bitterness, spite, or schadenfreude in the opposing party. It is an attempt to sway the audience emotionally by associating a hate-figure with opposition to the speaker's argument. Fallacious ad hominem arguments which attack villains holding the opposing view are often confused with appeals to spite. The ad hominem can be a similar appeal to a negative emotion, but differs from it in" directly criticizing" the villain —that is unnecessary in an
Appeal to spite
18708370
categorized as a species of informal fallacy and more specifically as a species of the subclass of ad hominem informal fallacies. "Argumentum ergo decedo" is directly related to the "tu quoque" fallacy when responding to political criticism. As whataboutism is used against external criticism, "ergo decedo" is used against internal criticism. Critic: "I think we need to work on improving United States' taxation system. The current system suffers from multiple issues that have been resolved in other places such as Canada and Europe." Respondent: "Well, if you don't like it, why don't you just leave and go somewhere you think
Ergo decedo
507325
Argumentum ad baculum Argumentum ad baculum (Latin for "argument to the cudgel" or "appeal to the stick") is the fallacy committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion. One participates in "argumentum ad baculum" when one points out the negative consequences of holding the contrary position (ex. believe what I say, or I will hit you). It is a specific case of the negative form of an argument to the consequences. A fallacious logical argument based on "argumentum ad baculum" generally proceeds as follows: This form of argument is
Argumentum ad baculum
15355985
Argumentum ad populum In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so." This type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, vox populi, and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), fickle crowd syndrome,
Argumentum ad populum
24524
Ad hominem Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The terms "ad mulierem" and "ad feminam" have been used specifically when the person receiving the criticism is female. However, its original meaning was an argument "calculated to appeal to the person addressed more than to impartial reason". Fallacious "ad hominem"
Ad hominem
24531
Taylor has argued that "ad hominem" reasoning (discussing facts about the speaker or author relative to the value of his statements) is essential to understanding certain moral issues due to the connection between individual persons and morality (or moral claims), and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning (involving facts beyond dispute or clearly established) of philosophical naturalism. Ad hominem Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the
Ad hominem
1603256
Poisoning the well Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal logical fallacy where irrelevant adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of "argumentum ad hominem", and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work "Apologia Pro Vita Sua" (1864). The origin of the term lies in well poisoning, an ancient wartime practice of pouring poison into sources of
Poisoning the well
2657316
people are more likely to show "wisdom", defined as the ability to consider opposing perspectives and find a compromise that defuses an interpersonal dispute, than those in higher socioeconomic classes. Argumentum ad lazarum Argumentum ad lazarum or appeal to poverty is the informal fallacy of thinking a conclusion is correct solely because the speaker is poor, or it is incorrect because the speaker is rich. It is named after Lazarus, a beggar in a New Testament parable who receives his reward in the afterlife. This is popularly exploited as the statement, "Poor, but honest." The opposite is the "argumentum ad
Argumentum ad lazarum
507326
an informal fallacy, because the attack on Q may not necessarily reveal anything about the truth value of the premise P. This fallacy has been identified since the Middle Ages by many philosophers. This is a special case of "argumentum ad consequentiam", or "appeal to consequences". The General (x) wants to avoid death (Q), therefore he abandons capitulation (P), although the undesirability of death does not prove that death follows from capitulation. This argument is of the form: The fallacy in the argument lies in assuming that the truth value of "x accepts P" is related to the truth value
Argumentum ad baculum
2657315
Argumentum ad lazarum Argumentum ad lazarum or appeal to poverty is the informal fallacy of thinking a conclusion is correct solely because the speaker is poor, or it is incorrect because the speaker is rich. It is named after Lazarus, a beggar in a New Testament parable who receives his reward in the afterlife. This is popularly exploited as the statement, "Poor, but honest." The opposite is the "argumentum ad crumenam". Experimental evidence bears out the appeal to poverty. A 2017 study by Igor Grossmann and Justin Brienza at the University of Waterloo in Canada found that poor and working-class
Argumentum ad lazarum
1717034
Appeal to fear An appeal to fear (also called argumentum ad metum or argumentum in terrorem) is a fallacy in which a person attempts to create support for an idea by attempting to increase fear towards an alternative. The appeal to fear is common in marketing and politics. This fallacy has the following argument form: The argument is invalid. The appeal to emotion is used in exploiting existing fears to create support for the speaker's proposal, namely P. Also, often the false dilemma fallacy is involved, suggesting Q is the proposed idea's sole alternative. Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) is
Appeal to fear
507327
of P itself. Whether x does accept P, and whether P is true can not be inferred from the available statements. However, the argument can be changed into a valid modus tollens by changing the conclusion. Note that this argument does not assert or come to any conclusion on whether Peter knows Jesus (cf. the fallacious conclusion "Therefore, Peter does not know Jesus"). Argumentum ad baculum Argumentum ad baculum (Latin for "argument to the cudgel" or "appeal to the stick") is the fallacy committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to bring about the acceptance of
Argumentum ad baculum
24529
conspiracy theories, witch-hunts, show trials, struggle sessions, and other coercive circumstances in which the person targeted is presumed guilty.) Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of "ad hominem" fallacy if the argument attacks a source because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument. This form of the argument is as follows: An example of this fallacy could be "My opponent for office just received an endorsement from the Puppy Haters Association. Is that the sort of person you would want to vote for?" When a statement is
Ad hominem
24528
to zero. Examples: However, this argument is valid only insofar as it devalues the denial; it does "not" strengthen the original claim. To construe invalid evidence of the denial as valid evidence of the original claim is fallacious (on several different bases, including that of "argumentum ad hominem" and "appeal to emotions"); however likely the man in question would be to deny an affair that did in fact happen, he is even more likely to deny an affair that never happened. (For example, inferring guilt from a denialor, less starkly, excessive devaluation of a denialis a very common feature in
Ad hominem
1783866
Argument from fallacy Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), the fallacy fallacy, the fallacist's fallacy, and the bad reasons fallacy. Fallacious arguments "can" arrive at true conclusions, so this is an informal fallacy of relevance. It has the general argument form: Thus, it is a special case of denying the antecedent where the antecedent, rather than being a proposition that is false, is an entire argument that is fallacious. A fallacious argument,
Argument from fallacy
12512825
philosophers. Many accredit him for adequately showing that ad hominem argumentation was quite typical surrounding philosophical writings, and had much broader use than previously thought. Henry Johnstone Jr. Henry Johnstone Jr. (1920–2000) was an American philosopher and rhetorician known especially for his notion of the "rhetorical wedge" and his re-evaluation of the "ad hominem" fallacy. He was Professor of Philosophy at Pennsylvania State University (1952–1984) and began studying Classics in the late 1970s. He was the founder and longtime editor of the journal "Philosophy and Rhetoric" and edited the "Journal of Speculative Philosophy". Ad hominem is Latin for "to the
Henry Johnstone Jr.
12512819
not to be confused with the ad hominem fallacy. Ad hominem essentially allows an individual to critique from the inside out, making it easier to show the fallacies or contradictions in the other's argument. Johnstone states that by using ad hominem "the clear mind can exploit the inconsistencies of the confused one. The force of this exploitation is to invite the latter to abandon ambiguity and incoherence." Early in his career, Johnstone viewed rhetoric as simply a means of deceiving the audience into believing a certain assertion made by the orator. He viewed philosophy in a more noble and truth-seeking
Henry Johnstone Jr.
15355987
a group of respected elders or the members of one's community over a long period of time, then it takes on the form of an appeal to tradition. One who commits this fallacy may assume that individuals commonly analyze and edit their beliefs and behaviors. This is often not the case. (See conformity.) The argumentum ad populum can be a valid argument in inductive logic; for example, a poll of a sizeable population may find that 100% prefer a certain brand of product over another. A cogent (strong) argument can then be made that the next person to be considered
Argumentum ad populum
6297245
Three men make a tiger "Three men make a tiger" () is a Chinese proverb or "chengyu" (four-character idiom). "Three men make a tiger" refers to an individual's tendency to accept absurd information as long as it is repeated by enough people. It refers to the idea that if an unfounded premise or urban legend is mentioned and repeated by many individuals, the premise will be erroneously accepted as the truth. This concept is related to communal reinforcement or the fallacy of "argumentum ad populum" and "argumentum ad nauseam". The proverb came from the story of an alleged speech by
Three men make a tiger
15355990
person may argue that the fact that Y people believe X to be true implies that X is "false". This line of thought is closely related to the appeal to spite fallacy given that it invokes a person's contempt for the general populace or something about the general populace in order to persuade them that most are wrong about X. This ad populum reversal commits the same logical flaw as the original fallacy given that the idea "X is true" is inherently separate from the idea that "Y people believe X": "Y people believe in X as true, purely because
Argumentum ad populum
9149908
Appeal to the stone Argumentum ad lapidem (Latin: "appeal to the stone") is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity. "Ad lapidem" statements are fallacious because they fail to address the merits of the claim in dispute. The same applies to proof by assertion, where an unproved or disproved claim is asserted as true on no ground other than that of its truth having been asserted. The name of this fallacy is derived from a famous incident in which Dr. Samuel Johnson claimed to disprove Bishop Berkeley's immaterialist philosophy (that
Appeal to the stone
12512818
Henry Johnstone Jr. Henry Johnstone Jr. (1920–2000) was an American philosopher and rhetorician known especially for his notion of the "rhetorical wedge" and his re-evaluation of the "ad hominem" fallacy. He was Professor of Philosophy at Pennsylvania State University (1952–1984) and began studying Classics in the late 1970s. He was the founder and longtime editor of the journal "Philosophy and Rhetoric" and edited the "Journal of Speculative Philosophy". Ad hominem is Latin for "to the person". According to Johnstone this means arguing from the perspective of the other person one is arguing with, not from one's own perspective. This is
Henry Johnstone Jr.
16891785
Argument from authority An argument from authority, ("argumentum ab auctoritate"), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context. Historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided: it is listed as a valid argument as often as a fallacious argument in various sources, with some
Argument from authority
19635388
rhetoric trick, which ridicules their striving for humanism, solidarity and social equity. Seeing the counterpart as "Gutmensch" took the discussion to a personal ("argumentum ad hominem" = "ad personam") and emotional level, in order to avoiding a discussion on a content level. The term is often used as an aggressive defense strategy against criticism on personal positions. Potential criticism on (factual or putative) racist, homophobic, anti-semitic (and increasing also anti-Islamic) or sexual violations taboos is debilitated by downgrading the person with those rhetoric strategies. In political discussions the usage of the term "Gutmensch" gains a moral polarized shape, which is
Gutmensch
3945526
Tu quoque Tu quoque (; Latin for "you also"), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s). "Tu quoque" "argument" follows the pattern: An example would be It is a fallacy because the moral character or actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument. It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the "ad hominem" fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument
Tu quoque
1717037
fearful, they were rejected by the subject; a moderate amount of fear is the most effective attitude changer. Others argue that it is not the level of fear that is decisive changing attitudes via the persuasion process. Rather, as long as a scare-tactics message includes a recommendation to cope with the fear, it can work. Appeal to fear An appeal to fear (also called argumentum ad metum or argumentum in terrorem) is a fallacy in which a person attempts to create support for an idea by attempting to increase fear towards an alternative. The appeal to fear is common in
Appeal to fear
1786448
all "x" in "S" the property "φ" must be true." The fallacy in the argument can be illustrated through the use of an Euler diagram: "A" satisfies the requirement that it is part of both sets "B" and "C", but if one represents this as an Euler diagram, it can clearly be seen that it is possible that a part of set "B" is "not" part of set "C", refuting the conclusion that "all Bs are Cs". Some syllogistic examples of guilt by association: Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument
Association fallacy
5984766
section is source criticism intimately linked to scientific methods. The presence of fallacies of argument in sources is another kind of philosophical criteria for evaluating sources. Fallacies are presented by Walton (1998). Among the fallacies are the 'ad hominem fallacy' (the use of personal attack to try to undermine or refute a person's argument) and the 'straw man fallacy' (when one arguer misrepresents another's position to make it appear less plausible than it really is, in order more easily to criticize or refute it.) See also fallacy. Research methods are methods used to produce scholarly knowledge. The methods that are
Source criticism
1717048
that it is the currency of the popularity that confers value, rather than any intrinsic quality of the music itself, or of popularity at previous times. If it is the case, novelty in itself – though not necessarily all forms of novelty – is a key aspect of evaluation. In those cases, if a statement comparing two art forms does mention their respective states of novelty, there is no fallacy (e.g. "Song A is currently a much better bet for your party than song B."). Appeal to novelty The appeal to novelty (also called argumentum ad novitatem) is a fallacy
Appeal to novelty
6229564
Proof by assertion Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted ("argumentum ad nauseam"). In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies. This fallacy is sometimes used as a form of rhetoric by politicians, or during a debate as a filibuster.
Proof by assertion
9149909
there are no material objects, only minds and ideas in those minds) by kicking a large stone and asserting, "I refute it "thus"." This action, which is said to fail to prove the existence of the stone outside the ideas formed by perception, is said to fail to contradict Berkeley's argument, and has been seen as merely dismissing it. Speaker B gives no evidence or reasoning, and when pressed, claims that Speaker A's statement is inherently absurd, thus applying the fallacy. Appeal to the stone Argumentum ad lapidem (Latin: "appeal to the stone") is a logical fallacy that consists in
Appeal to the stone
1717042
Appeal to novelty The appeal to novelty (also called argumentum ad novitatem) is a fallacy in which one prematurely claims that an idea or proposal is correct or superior, "exclusively" because it is new and modern. In a controversy between status quo and new inventions, an appeal to novelty argument is not in itself a valid argument. The fallacy may take two forms: overestimating the new and modern, prematurely and without investigation assuming it to be best-case, or underestimating status quo, prematurely and without investigation assuming it to be worst-case. Investigation may prove these claims to be true, but it
Appeal to novelty
3750332
Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism" of employing the fallacy: That Nazism and contemporary liberalism both promote healthy living is as meaningless a finding as that bloody marys and martinis may both be made with gin. Repeatedly, Goldberg fails to recognize a . ... In no case does Goldberg uncover anything more ominous than a coincidence. Reductio ad Hitlerum ' (; pseudo-Latin for "reduction to Hitler"; sometimes argumentum ad Hitlerum, "argument to Hitler", ', "to Nazism"), or playing the Nazi card, is an attempt to invalidate someone else's position on the basis that the same view was held by Adolf Hitler or
Reductio ad Hitlerum
11738853
Flag-waving Flag-waving is a fallacious argument or propaganda technique used to justify an action based on the undue connection to nationalism or patriotism or benefit for an idea, group or country. It is a variant of argumentum ad populum. This fallacy appeals to emotion instead to logic of the audience aiming to manipulate them to win an argument. All ad populum fallacies are based on the presumption that the recipients already have certain beliefs, biases, and prejudices about the issue. If flag-waving is based on connecting to some symbol of patriotism or nationalism it is a form of appeal to
Flag-waving
18708369
Ergo decedo Ergo decedo, Latin for "therefore leave" or "then go off", a truncation of argumentum ergo decedo, and colloquially denominated the traitorous critic fallacy, denotes responding to the criticism of a critic by implying that the critic is motivated by undisclosed favorability or affiliation to an out-group, rather than responding to the criticism itself. The fallacy impliedly alleges that the critic does not appreciate the values and customs of the criticized group or is traitorous, and thus suggests that the critic should avoid the question or topic entirely, typically by leaving the criticized group. "Argumentum ergo decedo" is generally
Ergo decedo
1756149
response to it occurs. Particular situations can "bring out" the "bad side" of people, which in the normal run of events would not occur. Pathological criticism occurs especially in situations of intense conflict or competition, where the normal internal and external controls on people's behaviour begin to break down. Not just personal change but also a "change of scene" may be required to get rid of the disorder. A term describing pathologic criticism may be used as argumentum ad hominem without proven diagnosis (see also "anti-psychiatry movement"). The anti-psychiatry movement opposes labeling persons who engage in criticism as having a
Criticism
16891792
physics. The body of attributed authorities might not even welcome their citation, such as with the "More Doctors Smoke Camels" ad campaign. It is also a fallacious "ad hominem" argument to argue that a person presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered. As appeals to a perceived lack of authority, these types of argument are fallacious for much the same reasons as an appeal to authority. Other related fallacious arguments assume that a person without status or authority is inherently reliable. For instance, the appeal to poverty is the fallacy of thinking that
Argument from authority
1717083
Appeal to flattery Appeal to flattery is a fallacy in which a person uses flattery, excessive compliments, in an attempt to appeal to their audience's vanity to win support for their side. It is also known as apple polishing, wheel greasing, brown nosing, appeal to pride, appeal to vanity or argumentum ad superbiam. The appeal to flattery is a specific kind of appeal to emotion. Flattery is often used to hide the true intent of an idea or proposal. Praise offers a momentary personal distraction that can often weaken judgment. Moreover, it is usually a cunning form of appeal to
Appeal to flattery
15355986
and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea. This fallacy is similar in structure to certain other fallacies that involve a confusion between the "justification" of a belief and its "widespread acceptance" by a given group of people. When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of supposed experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority; if the appeal is to the beliefs of
Argumentum ad populum
1736185
Appeal to consequences Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequences"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a type of informal fallacy, since the desirability of a premise's consequence does not make the premise true. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view. In logic, appeal to consequences refers only to arguments that
Appeal to consequences
1717659
be more likely to donate to that particular charity. Appeal to pity An appeal to pity (also called argumentum ad misericordiam, the sob story, or the Galileo argument) is a fallacy in which someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting his or her opponent's feelings of pity or guilt. It is a specific kind of appeal to emotion. The name "Galileo argument" refers to the scientist's suffering as a result of his house arrest by the Inquisition. An appeal to pity can be seen in many charitable advertisements. Charities appeal to your pity of less
Appeal to pity
1717658
Appeal to pity An appeal to pity (also called argumentum ad misericordiam, the sob story, or the Galileo argument) is a fallacy in which someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting his or her opponent's feelings of pity or guilt. It is a specific kind of appeal to emotion. The name "Galileo argument" refers to the scientist's suffering as a result of his house arrest by the Inquisition. An appeal to pity can be seen in many charitable advertisements. Charities appeal to your pity of less fortunate people or animals in order for you to
Appeal to pity
1717893
more favorably to an empathy-based appeal." Some researchers have argued that anxiety which is followed by relief leads to greater compliance to a request than fear, because the relief causes a temporary state of disorientation, leaving individuals vulnerable to suggestion. The suggestion is that relief-based persuasion is a function of less careful information processing. Experiments have shown that hope appeals are successful mainly with subjects who self-report as being predisposed to experiencing fear Appeal to emotion Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones ("argument from passion") is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order
Appeal to emotion
1717875
Appeal to emotion Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones ("argument from passion") is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence. This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking. Instead of facts, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based argument. Thus, the validity of the premises
Appeal to emotion
15355991
Y people believe in it, and not because of any further considerations. Therefore X must be false." While Y people can believe X to be true for fallacious reasons, X might still be true. Their motivations for believing X do not affect whether X is true or false. Y=most people, a given quantity of people, people of a particular demographic. X=a statement that can be true or false. For example, consider the arguments: In general, the reversal usually goes: "Most people believe A and B are both true. B is false. Thus, A is false." The similar fallacy of chronological
Argumentum ad populum
11738854
stirring symbols which can be based on undue connection not only to nationalism but also to some religious or cultural symbols. I.e. a politician appearing on TV with children, farmer, teacher, together with the “common” man, etc. The act of flag-waving is trivial display of support or loyalty to the nation or to the political party. Flag-waving Flag-waving is a fallacious argument or propaganda technique used to justify an action based on the undue connection to nationalism or patriotism or benefit for an idea, group or country. It is a variant of argumentum ad populum. This fallacy appeals to emotion
Flag-waving
2773542
approach is commonly seen in political speech, advertising, and popular entertainment. The classic example of something "ad captandum vulgus" was the "bread and circuses" by which the Roman emperors maintained the support of the people of Rome. Argumentum ad captandum In rhetoric an argumentum ad captandum, "for capturing" the gullibility of the naïve among the listeners or readers, is an unsound, specious argument designed to appeal to the emotions rather than to the mind. It is used to describe "claptrap or meretricious attempts to catch popular favor or applause." The longer form of the term is ad captandum vulgus (Latin,
Argumentum ad captandum
2773541
Argumentum ad captandum In rhetoric an argumentum ad captandum, "for capturing" the gullibility of the naïve among the listeners or readers, is an unsound, specious argument designed to appeal to the emotions rather than to the mind. It is used to describe "claptrap or meretricious attempts to catch popular favor or applause." The longer form of the term is ad captandum vulgus (Latin, "to ensnare the vulgar" or "to captivate the masses"); the shorter and longer versions of the phrase are synonymous. The word "vulgus" in Latin was a contemptuous reference, implying a rabble or a mob. The "ad captandum"
Argumentum ad captandum
15355992
snobbery is not to be confused with the ad populum reversal. Chronological snobbery is the claim that if belief in both X and Y was popularly held in the past and if Y was recently proved to be untrue then X must also be untrue. That line of argument is based on a belief in historical progress and not—like the ad populum reversal is—on whether or not X and/or Y is currently popular. Argumentum ad populum In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be
Argumentum ad populum
3755187
that the mere possibility of motive is evidence enough. Appeal to motive Appeal to motive is a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer. It can be considered as a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument. As such, this type of argument may be an informal fallacy. A common feature of appeals to motive is that only the possibility of a motive (however small) is shown, without showing the motive actually existed or, if the motive did exist, that the motive played a role in forming the
Appeal to motive
3755186
Appeal to motive Appeal to motive is a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer. It can be considered as a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument. As such, this type of argument may be an informal fallacy. A common feature of appeals to motive is that only the possibility of a motive (however small) is shown, without showing the motive actually existed or, if the motive did exist, that the motive played a role in forming the argument and its conclusion. Indeed, it is often assumed
Appeal to motive
1677190
refuted and the one that should have been refuted need to be similar. This is a combination of the straw man fallacy and the ad hominem argument. It is often used to incriminate someone in order to argument the innocence of someone else. This is a very important tactic for governments and politicians, and it even made its way to the famous book "The 48 Laws of Power" by Robert Greene, in the Law #26 titled: "Keep you hands clean". Visual media can be transformed through photo manipulation, commonly called "photoshopping." This can make a product, person, or idea seem
Media manipulation
507278
is called the "hollow man". A hollow man argument is one that is a complete fabrication, where both the viewpoint and the opponent expressing it do not in fact exist, or at the very least the arguer has never encountered them. Such arguments frequently take the form of vague phrasing such as "some say," "someone out there thinks" or similar weasel words, or it might attribute a non-existent argument to a broad movement in general, rather than an individual or organization. A variation on the selection form, or "weak man" argument, that combines with an ad hominem and fallacy of
Straw man
1308386
are various common categories of quotations: malapropisms or grammatical errors, exaggerations about past achievements, lack of conviction, consorting with the enemy, moral turpitude, indifference towards victims of crime, racist or discrimanatory, etc. In the case of malapropisms, it is a rhetorical fallacy (called argument ad hominem) to conclude that the entire argument of whoever made the utterance is incorrect. Yet it has become common in partisan argument in the United States. For instance: former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN (March 9, 1999) stated, "During my service in the United States Congress, I
Damaging quotation
7719256
as a substitute for text to represent information. Iconic labels are used as navigation systems, especially in mobile apps, where screen space is constrained. In context of argumentation and debate, labelling a debator or position is often (whether consciously or unconsciously) used as a "red herring" to divert or dismiss the argument, instead of valid argumentation. Often in the form of ad hominem association fallacy aiming at accrediting or discrediting the argument or the debator by associating them with an emotionally charged label. Typically negatively; labelling it as ridiculous or despicable, though it can also go the other way round;
Labelling
19452373
view is that it uniquely precludes an absurdity that arises on the alternatives. Namely, the possibility that one may be convinced by an argument, yet know no more after the argument than before. Aikin further argues that the main competitor theories of argument are either self-refuting or implicitly epistemic. His work in theory of argument has led Aikin to develop a program of expansive fallacy theory. Aikin poses an analysis of ad hominem tu quoque arguments that establishes the conditions for determining relevance of hypocrisy. He has (with Robert Talisse and John Casey) proposed a variety of straw man fallacies:
Scott Aikin
4982119
the case of Paul," and that the epistles have the same limitations as the Gospels as historical evidence. Price sees the epistles as a compilation of fragments (possibly with a Gnostic core), and contends that Marcion was responsible for much of the Pauline corpus or even wrote the letters himself, while criticizing the circumstantial "ad hominem" fallacy of fellow Christ myth theorists holding the mid-first-century dating of the epistles (e.g. Galatians is conventionally dated ) for their own apologetical reasons. Price argues that passages such as , and are late Catholic interpolations and that was unlikely to have been written
Christ myth theory
11819488
decision making in settings where influential forces are present. Philosophers view compliance in the context of arguments. Arguments are produced when an individual gives a reason for thinking that a claim is true. In doing so, they utilize premises (claims) to support their conclusion (opinion). Regardless of utilization of fallacy forms (e.g., apple-polishing, ad hominem) to get their point across, individuals engaged in philosophical arguments are overtly and logically expressing their opinion(s). This is an explicit action in which the person on the other side of the argument recognizes that the arguer seeks to gain compliance (acceptance of their conclusion).
Compliance (psychology)
17455424
is "Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service". Argumentum a contrario In logic, an (Latin: 'argument from the contrary'), also known as appeal from the contrary, denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not disproven by a certain case. It is the opposite of the analogy. When analogy is allowed, "a contrario" is forbidden and vice versa. Arguments "a contrario" are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws. Although it might be used as a logical fallacy, arguments "a
Argumentum a contrario
17455419
Argumentum a contrario In logic, an (Latin: 'argument from the contrary'), also known as appeal from the contrary, denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not disproven by a certain case. It is the opposite of the analogy. When analogy is allowed, "a contrario" is forbidden and vice versa. Arguments "a contrario" are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws. Although it might be used as a logical fallacy, arguments "a contrario" are not by definition fallacies. In law, the use
Argumentum a contrario
2194599
personal insult of your opponent, also known as a type of ad hominem fallacy), while others strictly police such activities and strongly promote independent research and more structured arguments. Rule sets on various sites usually serve to enforce or create the culture envisioned by the site's owner, or in some more open communities, the community itself. Policing post content, style, and structure combine with frequent use of "reward" systems (such as reputation, titles, and forum permissions) to promote activities seen as productive while discouraging unwelcomed actions. These cultures vary sufficiently that most styles can find a home. Some online debate
Debate
11677922
indicated that the Gore household uses "20 times as much electricity as the average household nationwide." In reporting on TCPR's claims, MSNBC's "Countdown With Keith Olbermann" noted that the house has twenty rooms and home offices and that the "green power switch" installed increased their electric bill while decreasing overall carbon pollution. Philosopher A. C. Grayling also defended Al Gore, arguing that Gore's personal lifestyle does nothing to impugn his message and that Gore's critics have committed the ad hominem fallacy. A few months later, the Associated Press reported on December 13, 2007, that Gore "has completed a host of
Environmental activism of Al Gore
24530
challenged by making an "ad hominem" attack on its author, it is important to draw a distinction between whether the statement in question was "an argument" or "a statement of fact" ("testimony"). In the latter case the issues of the credibility of the person making the statement may be crucial. Doug Walton, Canadian academic and author, has argued that "ad hominem" reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue, as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words. The philosopher Charles
Ad hominem
233113
a fallacy to describe a controversial view as a "fallacy"—not, at least, without arguing that it is a fallacy. In any event, it does not do to argue as follows: This is an example of circular reasoning. The second step includes an argument from fallacy. On the other hand, if someone adopts a simple relativist stance as an ad hoc defense of a controversial or otherwise compromised position—saying, in effect, that "what is true for you is not necessarily true for me," and thereby attempting to avoid having to mount any further defense of the position—one might be said to
Relativist fallacy
13607545
hac ratione. Quia ei qui est magis amicus, magis est deferendum. Cum autem amicitiam habeamus ad ambo, scilicet ad veritatem et ad hominem, magis debemus veritatem amare quam hominem, quia hominem praecipue debemus amare propter veritatem et propter virtutem ut in VIII huius dicetur. Veritas autem est amicus superexcellens cui debetur reverentia honoris; est etiam veritas quiddam divinum, in Deo enim primo et principaliter invenitur. Et ideo concludit, quod sanctum est praehonorare veritatem hominibus amicis. Dicit enim Andronicus Peripateticus, quod "sanctitas est quae facit fideles et servantes ea quae ad Deum iusta." Haec etiam fuit sententia Platonis, qui reprobans opinionem
Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas
1736187
ad baculum, which is the bringing up of "artificial" consequences (i.e. punishments) to argue that an action is wrong. An argument based on "appeal to consequences" generally has one of two forms: It is closely related to wishful thinking in its construction. Appeal to force ("argumentum ad baculum") is a special instance of this form. This form somewhat resembles modus tollens but is both different and fallacious, since "Q is undesirable" is not equivalent to "Q is false". In law, an argument from inconvenience or "argumentum ab inconvenienti", is a valid type of appeal to consequences. Such an argument would
Appeal to consequences
10955737
an "a fortiori" postulation is known as "kaimutika" or "kaimutya nyaya", from the words "kim uta" meaning "even more so." In Islamic jurisprudence, "a fortiori" arguments are proved utilising the methods used in "qiyas" (reasoning by analogy). In logic, a maiore ad minus describes a simple and obvious inference from a claim about a stronger entity, greater quantity, or general class to one about a weaker entity, smaller quantity, or specific member of that class: The reverse, less known and less frequently applicable argument is a minore ad maius, which denotes an inference from smaller to bigger. “Argumentum a maiori
Argumentum a fortiori
10955738
ad minus” (from the greater to the smaller) – works in two ways: “Argumentum a minori ad maius” (from the smaller to the greater) – works in the way: An "a fortiori" argument is sometimes considered in terms of analogical reasoning – especially in its legal applications. Reasoning "a fortiori" posits not mere that a case regulated by precedential or statutory law and an unregulated case should be treated alike since these cases sufficiently resemble each other, but that the unregulated case deserves to be treated in the same way as the regulated case in a higher degree. The unregulated
Argumentum a fortiori
6927194
simplex ad infixionem" used for impaling. It draws on Seneca the Younger, Hesychius of Alexandria, Gaius Maecenas and Pliny the Elder. To speak of what Lipsius would later call the "crux simplex ad infixionem", Seneca (c. 4 BC – AD 65) uses the term "stipes", the same term employed for the upright portion of the composite cross (the "crux compacta"). In his "Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium" Seneca mentions the "adactum per medium hominem qui per os emergat stipitem" (the stake which they drive straight through a man until it protrudes from his throat); and in his "De Consolatione ad Marciam"
Crux simplex
24526
statement less credible from a logical perspective. Indeed, Source A may be in a position to provide personal testimony to support the argument. For example, a father may tell his son not to start smoking as he will regret it when he is older, and the son may point out that his father is or was a smoker. This does not alter the fact that his son may regret smoking when he is older. "Circumstantial ad hominem" points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. It constitutes an attack on the
Ad hominem
3519945
other dogmas. The cognitive application of freethought is known as "freethinking" and practitioners of freethought are known as "freethinkers". Argument from authority (Latin: "argumentum ab auctoritate") is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused. In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism. The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form: Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence
Anti-authoritarianism
18708371
is better?" Critic: "Russia's political atmosphere is unsuitable for starting constructive conversations about reforms for the future of the country. A number of improvements are needed." Respondent: "Well, if you don't like the political system, then why are you here? You should just leave!" Ergo decedo Ergo decedo, Latin for "therefore leave" or "then go off", a truncation of argumentum ergo decedo, and colloquially denominated the traitorous critic fallacy, denotes responding to the criticism of a critic by implying that the critic is motivated by undisclosed favorability or affiliation to an out-group, rather than responding to the criticism itself. The
Ergo decedo
1783869
the fallacy fallacy as the fallacy "of imputing fallaciousness to a view with which one disagrees but without doing anything to show that the view rests on any error of reasoning". Unlike ordinary fallacy fallacies, which reason from an argument's fallaciousness to its conclusion's falsehood, the kind of argument Lycan has in mind treats another argument's fallaciousness as obvious without first demonstrating that any fallacy at all is present. Thus in some contexts it may be a form of begging the question it is also a special case of ad lapidem. Argument from fallacy Argument from fallacy is the formal
Argument from fallacy
15355988
will also very likely prefer that brand (but not always 100% since there could be exceptions), and the poll is valid "evidence" of that claim. However, it is unsuitable as an argument for deductive reasoning as "proof", for instance to say that the poll proves that the preferred brand is superior to the competition in its composition or that everyone prefers that brand to the other. Appeal to belief is valid only when the question is whether the belief exists. Appeal to popularity is therefore valid only when the questions are whether the belief is widespread and to what degree.
Argumentum ad populum
16891797
no longer the critical outsider he once was...If the student is unable to absorb our way of thinking, we flunk him out, of course. If he gets through our obstacle course and then decides that our arguments are unclear or incorrect, we dismiss him as a crank, crackpot, or misfit. Corporate environments are similarly vulnerable to appeals to perceived authorities and experts leading to groupthink, as are governments and militaries. Argument from authority An argument from authority, ("argumentum ab auctoritate"), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed
Argument from authority
11333583
he takes off the Cope: "Exue me, Domine, veterem hominem cum moribus et actibus suis: et indue me novum hominem, qui secundum Deum creatus est in justitia, et sanctitate veritatis." He washes his hands, saying: "Da, Domine, virtutem manibus meis ad abstergendam omnem maculam immundam; ut sine pollutione mentis et corporis valeam tibi servire." 'Give virtue to my hands, O Lord, that being cleansed from all stain I might serve you with purity of mind and body.' At the Amice: "Impone, Domine, galeam salutis in capite meo , ad expugnandas omnes diabolicas fraudes, inimicorum omnium versutias superando." 'Place upon my
Vesting Prayers
13179583
Invincible ignorance fallacy The invincible ignorance fallacy is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to either make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, etc. or saying that they are proof of nothing; all without actually demonstrating how the objection fit these terms (see ad lapidem fallacy). The term
Invincible ignorance fallacy
7493399
These alternative statements, however, do not match what William James characterized when he named the fallacy. Psychologist's fallacy The psychologist's fallacy is a fallacy that occurs when an observer assumes that his or her subjective experience reflects the true nature of an event. The fallacy was named by William James in the 19th century: Some sources state the Psychologist's Fallacy as if it were about two "people"—the observer and the observed—rather than about one observer and a fact. For example, In this alternative form, the fallacy is described as a specific form of the "similar to me" stereotype: what is
Psychologist's fallacy
3294560
weak generally have more exceptions (the number of exceptions to the generalization need not be a minority of cases) and vice versa. This fallacy may occur when we confuse particulars ("some") for categorical statements ("always and everywhere"). It may be encouraged when no qualifying words like "some", "many", "rarely" etc. are used to mark the generalization. Related inductive fallacies include: overwhelming exception, hasty generalization. See faulty generalization. The opposing kind of "dicto simpliciter" fallacy is the converse accident. Accident (fallacy) The informal fallacy of accident (also called destroying the exception or a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid) is a
Accident (fallacy)
9337940
and misused the works of others. S. E. Schnaiter reviewed her book, "New Age Bible Versions", and said, "Riplinger appears to be another of those who rush to [the KJV's] defense, alarmed by the proliferation of its modern rivals, armed with nothing more than the blunderbuss of ad hominem apologetic, when what is needed is the keenness of incisive evaluation." H. Wayne House argues that "New Age Bible Versions" is "replete with logical, philosophical, theological, biblical, and technical errors". A lengthy critical review of her book "New Age Bible Versions" was originally published in Cornerstone magazine in 1994, authored by
Gail Riplinger
2370361
will. You might say that there is a feminine polarity to the will – the willing surrender, the joyful acceptance of the other functions of the personality. At the end of the interview, Keen himself concluded: It is hard to know what counts as evidence for the validity of a world view and the therapeutic it entails. Every form of therapy has dramatic successes and just as dramatic failures. Enter as evidence in the case for Psychosynthesis an ad hominem argument: in speaking about death there was no change in the tone or intensity of Assagioli’s voice and the light
Roberto Assagioli
8676499
Part of Lewis's second dilemma is that in social life, it is not civil to think about the person who addresses us in conversation instead of thinking about what he says. I would agree, since ad hominem arguments are often the typical response to the person whose position we cannot refute. “Well, you only say that because you’re a man (or a woman).” Or, “You’re one to talk about relationships; you can’t even get along with your next door neighbor.” Statements like that don’t address the issue, Lewis says; they obscure it. Or, as Jay Budziszewski says, “Sir, I understand
The Personal Heresy
2256035
revelation of Nayirah's identity, there was a public outrage that the information had been withheld. The content, presentation, distribution, effectiveness, and purpose of Nayirah's testimony have been the subject of multiple public relations studies. In his book, "Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse", Frans H. van Eemeren stating that "visual messages which accompany verbal argumentation can be so drastic that rational argumentation becomes almost impossible" described Nayirah's story as an "argumentum ad misericordiam". In the paper "The Hill & Knowlton Cases: A Brief on the Controversy" by Susanne A. Roschwalb, the author noted that as H&K was a British firm, "what
Nayirah testimony
3750323
Reductio ad Hitlerum ' (; pseudo-Latin for "reduction to Hitler"; sometimes argumentum ad Hitlerum, "argument to Hitler", ', "to Nazism"), or playing the Nazi card, is an attempt to invalidate someone else's position on the basis that the same view was held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party, for example: "Hitler was against tobacco smoking, X is against tobacco smoking, therefore X is a Nazi". Coined by Leo Strauss in 1953, borrows its name from the term used in logic, (reduction to the absurd). According to Strauss, is a form of , , or a . The suggested rationale
Reductio ad Hitlerum
4650205
hominem attack as "an ironic comment on the fact that Rush makes ad hominem attacks all the time". Franken cited, for example, Limbaugh's attack on Chelsea Clinton, whom Limbaugh had described as "the White House dog". Franken said his motivation for writing the book was the rise of Newt Gingrich, who used Limbaugh as "his mouthpiece". The audiobook version won the 1997 Grammy Award for Best Spoken Comedy Album. Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations () is a 1996 American book by Al Franken. It is
Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations
3294784
"against" medicinal use of marijuana because it will lead to full use. The opposing kind of dicto simpliciter is accident. Converse accident The fallacy of converse accident (also called reverse accident, destroying the exception, or a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter) is an informal fallacy that can occur in a statistical syllogism (an argument based on a generalization) when a rule that applies only to an exceptional case is wrongly applied to all cases in general. For example: The inductive version of this fallacy is called hasty generalization. See faulty generalization. This fallacy is similar to the slippery slope,
Converse accident
4059728
the scholars make a distinction between actual victim blaming and rule by law that they consider to be falsely lumped with victim blaming in radical feminist rhetorics, they also advocate more protection from ad hominem questions to alleged victims about past life history and that the questions should focus on what is relevant for the specific alleged crime. They also cite examples that they consider to be cases of the horseshoe theory applied to the question of victim blaming. This includes cases in which psychologists who have testified on behalf of the prosecution in trials in which breast size have
Victim blaming
3294782
Converse accident The fallacy of converse accident (also called reverse accident, destroying the exception, or a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter) is an informal fallacy that can occur in a statistical syllogism (an argument based on a generalization) when a rule that applies only to an exceptional case is wrongly applied to all cases in general. For example: The inductive version of this fallacy is called hasty generalization. See faulty generalization. This fallacy is similar to the slippery slope, where the opposition claims that if a restricted action under debate is allowed, such as allowing people with glaucoma to
Converse accident
3294559
Accident (fallacy) The informal fallacy of accident (also called destroying the exception or a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid) is a deductively valid but unsound argument occurring in a statistical syllogism (an argument based on a generalization) when an exception to a rule of thumb is ignored. It is one of the thirteen fallacies originally identified by Aristotle in "Sophistical Refutations". The fallacy occurs when one attempts to apply a general rule to an irrelevant situation. For example: It is easy to construct fallacious arguments by applying general statements to specific incidents that are obviously exceptions. Generalizations that are
Accident (fallacy)
233112
"objective facts." So some more work must be done, in a non-question-begging way, to make it clear wherein, exactly, the fallacy lies. There are at least two ways to interpret "the relativist fallacy": either as identical to relativism (generally), or as the ad hoc adoption of a relativist stance purely to defend a controversial position. On the one hand, discussions of the relativist fallacy that portray it as "identical to" relativism (e.g., linguistic relativism or cultural relativism) are themselves committing a commonly identified fallacy of informal logic—namely, begging the question against an earnest, intelligent, logically competent relativist. It is itself
Relativist fallacy
5844583
guilty of regicide for executing King Charles. Milton responded with a detailed justification of the parliamentary party. The work includes invective against Salmasius and accusations of that scholar's inconsistency for taking contradictory positions. Milton also claims Salmasius wrote his work only due to being bribed with a "hundred Jacobuses" by the exiled son of Charles, who would later become King Charles II of England. The level of "ad hominem" attack is high and much unlike what one would expect from a serious contemporary debater even on a controversial topic. Here is an excerpt from the beginning of Chapter VIII, where
Defensio pro Populo Anglicano
233114
have committed a fallacy. The accusation of having committed a fallacy might rest on either of two grounds: (1) the relativism on which the bogus defense rests is so simple and meritless that it straightforwardly contradicts the Law of Non-Contradiction; or (2) the defense (and thus the fallacy itself) is an example of ad hoc reasoning. It puts one in the position of asserting or implying that truth or standards of logical consistency are relative to a particular thinker or group and that under some other standard, the position is correct despite its failure to stand up to logic. Determining
Relativist fallacy
9784869
for San Francisco values. San Francisco values "San Francisco values" is a term often used pejoratively and as an "ad hominem" phrase to refer to cultural, social and moral attributes associated with the city of San Francisco, California's liberal politics and pluralist culture. Often values and expressions that are less popular among social conservatives, such as LGBT equality, the anti-war movement, or secular values generally, are invoked by users to frame their argument. The same values form the foundation of what is known as West Coast liberalism, though the political cultures of Los Angeles (and notably Hollywood therein), Seattle, et
San Francisco values
9784862
San Francisco values "San Francisco values" is a term often used pejoratively and as an "ad hominem" phrase to refer to cultural, social and moral attributes associated with the city of San Francisco, California's liberal politics and pluralist culture. Often values and expressions that are less popular among social conservatives, such as LGBT equality, the anti-war movement, or secular values generally, are invoked by users to frame their argument. The same values form the foundation of what is known as West Coast liberalism, though the political cultures of Los Angeles (and notably Hollywood therein), Seattle, et cetera also contribute to
San Francisco values