Explain what an "ad hominem attack" is and why strong critical thinkers reject this tactic as a demonstration that a person's argument is unacceptable
What will be an ideal response
The short response is that arguments are to be judged on their own merits, not on the merits of their producers. To amplify that, it is simply false to assume that because the person making the argument is deficient in some real or imagined way, the person's argument, work product, or views should not be accepted on their own merits. Ad hominem is Latin for "against the person" and it expresses the error this fallacy makes, which is to claim that a person's ideas must be tainted because the person has some vice or flaw. The opposite would be equally fallacious, which is to assume that because the person making the argument is virtuous the argument must be good, too. Strong critical thinking no more obliges us to reject every argument made by a convicted felon or an intentionally incendiary radio talk-show host than to accept every argument made by a beneficent Pope or a peace loving Dalai Lama.
You might also like to view...
The sacred liquid offered in the fire sacrifice to Ahura Mazda is called:
A. haoma. B. kusti. C. amrit. D. gris-gris.
Martha Stewart was charged with which of the following?
A. Making an insider trade. B. Lying in connection with making an alleged insider trade. C. Failing to disclose the financial position of her company. D. Obstructing justice by not providing proper documentation of workplace safety.
Which of the following is NOT an objection to vulgar hedonism raised or intimated by Socrates in our selections from the Gorgias?
a. Some pleasures are harmful. b. The good is the standard of the pleasant, not the other way around. c. Pain can sometimes be good for you. d. Self-restraint creates a surplus of pain over pleasure in the individual, and therefore is bad
What causes a thermistor to change resistance value?
What will be an ideal response?