1. Home
  2. Religion & Spirituality
  3. Agnosticism / Atheism

Argument Against the Person (Argumentum ad hominem)

Fallacies of Relevance

-->
• Logical Fallacies
• Alphabetical Index
• Fallacies of Analogy
• Fallacies of Ambiguity
• Fallacies of Relevance
• Fallacies of Presumption
• Appeals to Emotion
• Ad Hominem Fallacies
• Appeals to Authority

• Ad Hominem Fallacies
• Ad Hominem Index
• Abusive ad hominem
• Tue Quoque
• Circumstantial ad hom
• Genetic Fallacy
• Poisoning the Well

• Discussion Forum
Do you have an opinion about this page? Make it known on the Discussion Forum!

• Chat Room
Join others in the Agnosticism/Atheism chat!

This fallacy is not only common, but also commonly misunderstood. Many people assume that any personal attack is an ad hominem argument, but that isn't true. Some attacks aren't ad hominem fallacies, and some ad hominem fallacies aren't clear insults.

What the concept Argument ad hominem means is "argument to the man," although it is also translated as "argument against the man." Instead of criticizing what a person says and the arguments they are offering, what we have instead is criticism of where the arguments are coming from. This is not necessarily relevant to the validity of what is said - thus, it is a Fallacy of Relevance.

The general form this argument takes is:

1. There is something objectionable about person X. Therefore, person X's claim is false.

This fallacy can be separatedinto five different types:

Abusive ad hominem
Tu Quoque (two wrongs don't make a right)
Circumstantial ad hominem
Genetic Fallacy
Poisoning the Well

We'll look at all five separately, even though they can be very similar. It is important, however, to remember that an argumentum ad hominem is not always a fallacy! Because this category involves fallacies of relevance, the ad hominem argument is a fallacy when the comments are directed against some aspect about a person which is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

But not everything about a person is irrelevant to every possible topic. Sometimes, it is quite legitimate to bring up a person's expertise in some subject as a reason to be skeptical, and perhaps even dismissive, of their opinions about it. For example:

2. George is not a biologist and has no training in biology. Therefore, his opinions about what is or is not possible with regards to evolutionary biology do not have a lot of credibility.

The above argument rests upon the assumption that, if a person is going to make credible assertions about what is or is not possible for evolutionary biology, then they really should have some training in biology - preferably a degree and perhaps some practical experience. Because biology is a very technical area, this is a reasonable position to take.

-->

Explore Agnosticism / Atheism

More from About.com

  1. Home
  2. Religion & Spirituality
  3. Agnosticism / Atheism

©2008 About.com, a part of The New York Times Company.

All rights reserved.