Search results for 'ad_hominem' (try it on Scholar)

151 found
Order:
  1.  59
    Uri D. Leibowitz (forthcoming). Moral Deliberation and Ad Hominem Fallacies. Journal of Moral Philosophy.
    Many of us read Peter Singer’s work on our obligations to those in desperate need with our students. Famously, Singer argues that we have a moral obligation to give a significant portion of our assets to famine relief. If my own experience is not atypical, it is quite common for students, upon grasping the implications of Singer’s argument, to ask whether Singer gives to famine relief. In response it might be tempting to remind students of the (so called) ad hominem (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  43
    Audrey Yap (2013). Ad Hominem Fallacies, Bias, and Testimony. Argumentation 27 (2):97-109.
    An ad hominem fallacy is committed when an individual employs an irrelevant personal attack against an opponent instead of addressing that opponent’s argument. Many discussions of such fallacies discuss judgments of relevance about such personal attacks, and consider how we might distinguish those that are relevant from those that are not. This paper will argue that the literature on bias and testimony can helpfully contribute to that analysis. This will highlight ways in which biases, particularly unconscious biases, can make ad (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  3.  21
    Heather Battaly (2010). Attacking Character: Ad Hominem Argument and Virtue Epistemology. Informal Logic 30 (4):361-390.
    The recent literature on ad hominem argument contends that the speaker’s character is sometimes relevant to evaluating what she says. This effort to redeem ad hominems requires an analysis of character that explains why and how character is relevant. I argue that virtue epistemology supplies this analysis. Three sorts of ad hominems that attack the speaker’s intellectual character are legitimate. They attack a speaker’s: (1) possession of reliabilist vices; or (2) possession of responsibilist vices; or (3) failure to perform intellectually (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  4.  74
    Moti Mizrahi (2010). Take My Advice—I Am Not Following It: Ad Hominem Arguments as Legitimate Rebuttals to Appeals to Authority. Informal Logic 30 (4):435-456.
    In this paper, I argue that ad hominem arguments are not always fallacious. More explicitly, in certain cases of practical reasoning, the circumstances of a person are relevant to whether or not the conclusion should be accepted. This occurs, I suggest, when a person gives advice to others or prescribes certain courses of action but fails to follow her own advice or act in accordance with her own prescriptions. This is not an instance of a fallacious tu quoque provided that (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5.  14
    John Woods (2007). Lightening Up on the Ad Hominem. Informal Logic 27 (1):109-134.
    In all three of its manifestations, —abusive, circumstantial and tu quoque—the role of the ad hominem is to raise a doubt about the opposite party’s casemaking bona-fides.Provided that it is both presumptive and provisional, drawing such a conclusion is not a logical mistake, hence not a fallacy on the traditional conception of it. More remarkable is the role of the ad hominem retort in seeking the reassurance of one’s opponent when, on the face of it, reassurance is precisely what he (...)
    Direct download (15 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  6.  11
    Henry W. Johnstone (1996). Locke and Whately on the Argumentum Ad Hominem. Argumentation 10 (1):89-97.
    This is an exploration of what Locke and Whately said about the Argumentatum ad Hominem, especially in the context of what they said about the other ad arguments, and with a view to ascertaining whether what they said lends support to the understanding of this argument implicit in Johnstone's thesis that all valid philosophical arguments are ad hominem. It is concluded that this support is forthcoming insofar as Locke and Whately had in mind an argument concerned with principles.The essay ends (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  7.  7
    D. N. Walton (2001). Searching for the Roots of the Circumstantial Ad Hominem. Argumentation 15 (2):207-221.
    This paper looks into the known evidence on the origins of the type of argument called the circumstantial ad hominemargument in modern logic textbooks, and introduces some new evidence. This new evidence comes primarily from recent historical work by Jaap Mansfeld and Jonathan Barnes citing many cases where philosophers in the ancient world were attacked on the grounds that their personal actions failed to be consistent with their philosophical teachings. On the total body of evidence, two hypotheses about the roots (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  8.  4
    Eerik Lagerspetz (1995). Ad Hominem Arguments in Practical Argumentation. Argumentation 9 (2):363-370.
    This paper is ultimately about the nature of argumentation in general and about the nature of practical argumentation in particular. (Practical argumentation is the form of argumentation which aims at answering the question: ‘What is to be done?’) The approach adopted here is an indirect one. I analyze one traditional form of argumentive fallacyargumentum ad hominem and try to show that in some argumentative situations it is an intuitively legitimate move. These intuitions can be explained if we accept that practical (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9.  23
    Graciela Marta Chichi (2002). The Greek Roots of the Ad Hominem-Argument. Argumentation 16 (3):333-348.
    In this paper, I discuss the current thesis on the modern origin of the ad hominem-argument, by analysing the Aristotelian conception of it. In view of the recent accounts which consider it a relative argument, i.e., acceptable only by the particular respondent, I maintain that there are two Aristotelian versions of the ad hominem, that have identifiable characteristics, and both correspond to the standard variants distinguished in the contemporary treatments of the famous informal fallacy: the abusive and the circumstancial or (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  5
    Erik C. W. Krabbe & Douglas Walton (1993). It's All Very Well for You to Talk! Situationally Disqualifying Ad Hominem Attacks. Informal Logic 15 (2).
    The situationally disqualifying ad hominem attack is an argumentative move in critical dialogue whereby one participant points out certain features in his adversary's personal situation that are claimed to make it inappropriate for this adversary to take a particular point of view, to argue in a particular way, or to launch certain criticisms. In this paper, we discuss some examples of this way of arguing. Other types of ad hominem argumentation are discussed as well and compared with the situationally disqualifying (...)
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11.  5
    Maurice A. Finocchiaro (2001). Valid Ad Hominem Arguments in Philosophy: Johnstone's Metaphilosophical Informal Logic. Informal Logic 21 (1).
    This is a critical examination of Johnstone's thesis that all valid philosophical arguments are ad hominem. I clarify his notions of valid, philosophical, and ad hominem. I illustrate the thesis with his refutation ofthe claim that only ordinary language is correct. r discuss his three supporting arguments (historical, theoretical, and intermediate). And r criticize the thesis with the objections that if an ad hominem argument is valid, it is really ad rem; that it's unclear how his own theoretical argument can (...)
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12.  18
    John Woods (2007). Lightening Up on the Ad Hominem. Informal Logic 27 (1):109-134.
    In all three of its manifestations, —abusive, circumstantial and tu quoque—the role of the ad hominem is to raise a doubt about the opposite party’s casemaking bona-fides.Provided that it is both presumptive and provisional, drawing such a conclusion is not a logical mistake, hence not a fallacy on the traditional conception of it. More remarkable is the role of the ad hominem retort in seeking the reassurance of one’s opponent when, on the face of it, reassurance is precisely what he (...)
    Direct download (15 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13.  7
    Frans H. Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst (1992). Relevance Reviewed: The Case of Argumentum Ad Hominem. [REVIEW] Argumentation 6 (2):141-159.
    This article aims tt providing some conceptual tools for dealing adequately with relevance in argumentative discourse. For this purpose, argumentative relevance is defined as a functional interactional relation between certain elements in the discourse. In addition to the distinction between interpretive and evaluative relevance that can be traced in the literature, analytic relevance is introduced as an intermediary concept. In order to classify the various problems of relevance arising in interpreting, analyzing and evaluating argumentative discourse, a taxonomy is proposed in (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14.  10
    Michael Leff (2009). Perelman, Ad Hominem Argument, and Rhetorical Ethos. Argumentation 23 (3):301-311.
    Perelman’s view of the role of persons in argument is one of the most distinctive features of his break with Cartesian assumptions about reasoning. Whereas the rationalist paradigm sought to minimize or eliminate personal considerations by dismissing them as distracting and irrelevant, Perelman insists that argumentation inevitably does and ought to place stress on the specific persons engaged in an argument and that the relationship between speaker and what is spoken is always relevant and important. In taking this position, Perelman (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15.  67
    Christopher A. Pynes (2012). Ad Hominem Arguments and Intelligent Design: Reply to Koperski. Zygon 47 (2):289-297.
    Abstract Jeffrey Koperski claims in Zygon (2008) that critics of Intelligent Design engage in fallacious ad hominem attacks on ID proponents and that this is a “bad way” to engage them. I show that Koperski has made several errors in his evaluation of the ID critics. He does not distinguish legitimate, relevant ad hominem arguments from fallacious ad hominem attacks. He conflates (or equates) the logical use of valid with the colloquial use of valid. Moreover, Koperski doesn't take seriously the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  16.  19
    Adam J. L. Harris, Anne S. Hsu & Jens K. Madsen (2012). Because Hitler Did It! Quantitative Tests of Bayesian Argumentation Using Ad Hominem. Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):311 - 343.
    Bayesian probability has recently been proposed as a normative theory of argumentation. In this article, we provide a Bayesian formalisation of the ad Hitlerum argument, as a special case of the ad hominem argument. Across three experiments, we demonstrate that people's evaluation of the argument is sensitive to probabilistic factors deemed relevant on a Bayesian formalisation. Moreover, we provide the first parameter-free quantitative evidence in favour of the Bayesian approach to argumentation. Quantitative Bayesian prescriptions were derived from participants' stated subjective (...)
    Translate
      Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  17.  36
    Christopher M. Johnson (2009). Reconsidering the Ad Hominem. Philosophy 84 (2):251-266.
    Ad hominem arguments are generally dismissed on the grounds that they are not attempts to engage in rational discourse, but are rather aimed at undermining argument by diverting attention from claims made to assessments of character of persons making claims. The manner of this dismissal however is based upon an unlikely paradigm of rationality: it is based upon the presumption that our intellectual capacities are not as limited as in fact they are, and do not vary as much as they (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  18.  13
    Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen & Bert Meuffels (2012). The Disguised Abusive Ad Hominem Empirically Investigated: Strategic Manoeuvring with Direct Personal Attacks. Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):344 - 364.
    The main finding of a comprehensive empirical research project on the intersubjective acceptability of the pragma-dialectical discussion rules (Van Eemeren, Garssen & Meuffels, 2009) is that ordinary language users judge discussion moves that are considered fallacious from an argumentation-theoretical perspective as unreasonable. In light of this finding it is remarkable that in everyday argumentative discourse fallacies occur regularly and seem many times not to be noticed by the participants in the discourse. This also goes for the abusive argumentum ad hominem. (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  19.  0
    Douglas Walton (1998). Ad Hominem Arguments. University Alabama Press.
    Walton gives a clear method for analyzing and evaluating cases of ad hominem arguments found in everyday argumentation.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  20.  14
    D. N. Walton (2004). Argumentation Schemes and Historical Origins of the Circumstantial Ad Hominem Argument. Argumentation 18 (3):359-368.
    There are two views of the ad hominem argument found in the textbooks and other traditional treatments of this argument, the Lockean or ex concessis view and the view of ad hominem as personal attack. This article addresses problems posed by this ambiguity. In particular, it discusses the problem of whether Aristotle's description of the ex concessis type of argument should count as evidence that he had identified the circumstantial ad hominem argument. Argumentation schemes are used as the basis for (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  21.  6
    Katarzyna Budzynska & Maciej Witek (2014). Non-Inferential Aspects of Ad Hominem and Ad Baculum. Argumentation 28 (3):301-315.
    The aim of the paper is to explore the interrelation between persuasion tactics and properties of speech acts. We investigate two types of arguments ad: ad hominem and ad baculum. We show that with both of these tactics, the structures that play a key role are not inferential, but rather ethotic, i.e., related to the speaker’s character and trust. We use the concepts of illocutionary force and constitutive conditions related to the character or status of the speaker in order to (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22.  10
    Douglas N. Walton (1987). The Ad Hominem Argument as an Informal Fallacy. Argumentation 1 (3):317-331.
    This article outlines criteria for the evaluation of the argumentum ad hominem (argument against the person, or personal attack in argument) that is traditionally a part of the curriculum in informal logic. The argument is shown to be a kind of criticism which works by shifting the burden of proof in dialogue through citing a pragmatic inconsistency in an arguer's position. Several specific cases of ad hominem argumentation which pose interesting problems in analyzing this type of criticism are studied.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23.  18
    Daniel Putman (2010). Equivocating the Ad Hominem. Philosophy 85 (4):551-555.
    Christopher Johnson argued in 'Reconsidering the Ad Hominem' that, in certain exceptional cases, appealing to ad hominem considerations is logically justifiable. My argument is that ad hominem considerations are no different than other evidential considerations. The evidential links may be strong, weak or nonexistent but there is nothing special in itself about considering ad hominem factors when weighing evidence. Like all the informal fallacies, simply because a claim has the signature of being 'ad hominem' does not make it irrelevant. The (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24.  6
    Gary Jason (2011). Does Virtue Epistemology Provide a Better Account of the Ad Hominem Argument? A Reply to Christopher Johnson. Philosophy 86 (1):95-119.
    Christopher Johnson has put forward in this journal the view that ad hominem reasoning may be more generally reasonable than is allowed by writers such as myself, basing his view on virtue epistemology. I review his account, as well as the standard account, of ad hominem reasoning, and show how the standard account would handle the cases he sketches in defense of his own view. I then give four criticisms of his view generally: the problems of virtue conflict, vagueness, conflation (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25.  8
    Peter Suber (1990). A Case Study in 'Ad Hominem' Arguments: Fichte's "Science of Knowledge". Philosophy and Rhetoric 23 (1):12 - 42.
    Fichte's narrative persona in the Science of Knowledge is obnoxious. I try to disentangle regrettable signs of immaturity and paranoia from justifiable ad hominem arguments. Many of Fichte's ad hominem attacks on metaphysical realists are justified by his metaphysics and epistemology. We cannot criticize an important class of these arguments unless we criticize his epistemology and metaphysics. They are not matters of "style" separable from "substance". I show this inseparability, and point out a few inconsistencies, but otherwise do not comment (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26.  0
    Lawrence H. Powers, Ad Hominem Arguments.
    Ad hominem arguments argue that some opponent should not be heard and no argument of that opponent should be heard or considered. The opponent has generally pernicious views, false and harmful. Moreover he is diabolically clever at arguing for his views. Thus, the ad hominem argument is essentially a device by which non-intellectuals try to wrest control of a dialectical situation from intellectuals. Stifling intellectuals, disrupting the dialectical situation, is an unpleasant conclusion, but no fallacy has been shown in what (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27.  1
    Frans H. Van Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst (1992). Relevance Reviewed: The Case of Argumentum Ad Hominem. Argumentation 6 (2):141-159.
    This article aims tt providing some conceptual tools for dealing adequately with relevance in argumentative discourse. For this purpose, argumentative relevance is defined as a functional interactional relation between certain elements in the discourse. In addition to the distinction between interpretive and evaluative relevance that can be traced in the literature, analytic relevance is introduced as an intermediary concept. In order to classify the various problems of relevance arising in interpreting, analyzing and evaluating argumentative discourse, a taxonomy is proposed in (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28.  96
    David Papineau (2007). Kripke's Proof is Ad Hominem Not Two-Dimensional. Philosophical Perspectives 21 (1):475–494.
    Identity theorists make claims like ‘pain = C-fibre stimulation’. These claims must be necessary if true, given that terms like ‘pain’ and ‘C-fibre stimulation’ are rigid. Yet there is no doubt that such claims appear contingent. It certainly seems that there could have been C-fibre stimulation without pains or vice versa. So identity theorists owe us an explanation of why such claims should appear contingent if they are in fact necessary.
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  29. Douglas N. Walton (1985). Arguer's Position: A Pragmatic Study of Ad Hominem Attack, Criticism, Refutation, and Fallacy. Greenwood Press.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  30. Marianne Janack & John Charles Adams (1999). Feminist Epistemologies, Rhetorical Traditions, and the Ad Hominem. In Christine Mason Sutherland & Rebecca Sutcliffe (eds.), The Changing Tradition: Women in the History of Rhetoric. University of Calgary Press
  31.  47
    David Papineau, Kripke's Argument is Ad Hominem Not Two-Dimensional.
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  32.  21
    Lawrence M. Hinman (1982). The Case for Ad Hominem Arguments. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 60 (4):338 – 345.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  33.  28
    Alan Brinton (1985). A Rhetorical View of the Ad Hominem. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 63 (1):50 – 63.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  34.  7
    D. Callahan (1994). Ad Hominem Run Amok: A Response to John Lachs. Journal of Clinical Ethics 5 (1):13.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  35.  13
    Stephen de Wijze (2003). Complexity, Relevance and Character: Problems with Teaching the Ad Hominem Fallacy. Educational Philosophy and Theory 35 (1):31–56.
  36.  38
    Michael Veber (2012). “People Who Argue Ad Hominem Are Jerks” and Other Self-Fulfilling Fallacies. Argumentation 26 (2):201-212.
    A self-fulfilling fallacy (SFF) is a fallacious argument whose conclusion is that the very fallacy employed is an invalid or otherwise illegitimate inferential procedure. This paper discusses three different ways in which SFF’s might serve to justify their conclusions. SFF’s might have probative value as honest and straightforward arguments, they might serve to justify the premise of a meta-argument or, following a point made by Roy Sorensen, they might provide a non-inferential basis for accepting their conclusion. The paper concludes with (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37.  8
    Scott F. Aikin (2011). The Ad Hominem Argument against'Knowledge is True Belief': A Reply to Martens. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 7 (1):5-10.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38. Else M. Barth & Jan L. Martens (1977). Argumentum Ad Hominem: From Chaos to Formal Dialectic. Logique Et Analyse 20 (77):76-96.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  39.  2
    R. Metcalf (2005). Rethinking the Ad Hominem: A Case Study of Chomsky. [REVIEW] Argumentation 19 (1):29-52.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40.  4
    P. T. Mackenzie (1984). Ad Hominem and Ad Verecundiam. Informal Logic 3 (3).
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  41.  24
    Henry W. Johnstone Jr (1952). Philosophy and Argumentum Ad Hominem. Journal of Philosophy 49 (15):489-498.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  42.  10
    Gary James Jason (1984). Is There a Case for Ad Hominem Arguments? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 62 (2):182 – 185.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  43.  11
    Stephen Anderson (2002). Rehabilitating the Ad Hominem Argument. Philosophy Now 37:36-37.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44.  5
    David Hitchcock (2006). The Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of the Ad Hominem Fallacy. In F. H. van Eemeren, Peter Houtlosser, Haft-van Rees & A. M. (eds.), Considering Pragma-Dialectics: A Festschrift for Frans H. L. Erlbaum Associates 103.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45.  1
    Gayne Nerney (1987). On the Philosophical Use of Ad Hominem Argument in Nietzsche, Marx, and Dewey. International Philosophical Quarterly 27 (2):151-159.
  46.  3
    Gilles Gauthier (1995). L'argumentation périphérique dans la communication politique : le cas de l'argument « ad hominem. Hermes 16:167.
    No categories
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47.  2
    Trudy Govier (1985). Douglas N. Walton, Arguer's Position: A Pragmatic Study of Ad Hominem Attack, Criticism, Refutation, and Fallacy Reviewed By. Philosophy in Review 5 (9):405-406.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48.  12
    Daniel A. Dombrowski (1996). Do Critics of Heidegger Commit the Ad Hominem Fallacy? International Journal of Applied Philosophy 10 (2):71-75.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49.  13
    C. Swoyer (2001). The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument; Ad Hominem Arguments. Philosophical Review 110 (2):291-295.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50.  12
    Douglas N. Walton (2000). Case Study of the Use of a Circumstantial Ad Hominem in Political Argumentation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 33 (2):101 - 115.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 151