This issue of the EJournal sees the start of a series of short articles on logical topics. Logic is roughly defined as the study of reasoning. We will not be concerned with formal logics such as the propositional calculus or predicate calculus, but rather we will be looking into reasoning in a more informal way. Our first topic is ad hominem arguments.
One of the spiritual problems affecting the community today is the adversarial nature of posts and forums on the Internet. Ad hominem arguments are a common characteristic of such forums.
An ad hominem argument is one that attacks the person rather than what the person is saying. There are good and bad examples. If someone objects, ‘What are your qualifications for saying that?’ we likely have an ad hominem argument, but it doesn’t seem unreasonable, unless the question is just a debating or rhetorical ploy. Of course, a person’s qualifications do not affect the truth-value of what s/he is saying, and so any challenge on this score doesn’t add to the argument.
There is a broader point; the person in front of you is there making an argument and whether you ask about their qualifications or not, you know some of their background. They may have expertise and this affects how you evaluate what they say, even if this is done sub-consciously. If they are saying something contrary to your existing beliefs, this creates a kind of conflict in your mind. You might seek another expert opinion, which is a kind of ad hominem reaction. In any case, my point is merely that what you know about the person is affecting your appraisal of an argument one way or another, whatever you do or how you react; they loom large in your decision-making.
You may not know that you have shifted your thinking from the argument to the person in any debate. For example, suppose a person puts forward a new interpretation of a text contrary to your own reading. Instead of attacking the detail of that interpretation, its nuts and bolts, you may react by saying, ‘You are handling the text dishonestly’ or ‘That’s just your interpretation’. What gives the game away in these reactions is the prominence of the personal pronoun which will often be stressed. These reactions shift from the argument about the text to the person making the argument. However, they do not move any discussion forward.
Biblical interpretation deals in texts, but a charge of dishonesty can be made at any time, for example, about your handling of archaeological data ‘to suit your own purpose’. If someone says this against you, they have shifted from the actual handling of the data to ‘you’ and ‘your’ intentions. It’s very easy to do; it can seem very innocent, after all, it is you doing the actual handling of the data, but it can also be part of a subtle ad hominem strategy. What should be happening here instead is a focus on the data: thus, you might say that ‘the data is not amenable to that interpretation because of xyz’. You keep your gaze on the data and the interpretation and away from the person and their motivations, despite what you may suspect about them.
By focusing on the argument, the reasoning, the text and the data, and not the person, you stand the best chance of persuading your opponent of the merits of your case. Perhaps this is a rose-tinted view of human nature, but the less ‘person-directed’ language you use, the less opportunity there is for ego to become involved. It may be that a tendency to use ad hominem arguments is an expression of the other’s person ego. No doubt, speculating about an opponent’s psychology is best left to private thoughts.
On Internet forums, ad hominem argumentation is rife. Posts often ‘go for’ the person and not the argument. The situation is often adversarial and not co-operative; people may be watching the forum and those who post may want to be seen to ‘win’ the argument. Ad hominem arguments can be very effective as persuasive tools, but they don’t actually address the logic and facts of the case under discussion. To do this, there has to be a focus on the sentences and the reasoning.
How do you handle ad hominem arguments against yourself? It will be tempting to do the same against your opponent. You will certainly find yourself wondering why your opponent has turned the spotlight on you, and it will make you wonder whether their other non–ad hominem reasoning can be trusted. These are private thoughts. The best way to handle an ad hominem argument is to label it as such and leave it at that. It is a technical expression and well-documented. You will know if your opponent is making an ad hominem argument if they start using personal vocabulary a lot (‘you’, ‘your’), words referring to your motivations, your intentions, your prejudices, and any personal reasons why you are saying something.
Labelling an argument ‘ad hominem’ on an Internet forum may cause the discussion to halt or falter. Nevertheless, it is a valuable thing to do, especially if you see someone frequently attacking the person rather than the argument. The forum thread might be on a controversial topic, but unless it is co-operative and not adversarial, it will likely prove to be nothing more than noise. Forums in use in the community should be co-operative conversations and not adversarial. One of the spiritual problems affecting the community today is the adversarial nature of posts and forums on the Internet. Ad hominem arguments are a common characteristic of such forums.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One