Welcome aboard The Bus!
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED (3.31) 17 JULY 2023
The Stop
Logical fallacies are arguments built on false reasoning. Initially, they might appear true - and can be persuasive. Consequently, they are often used in rhetoric to encourage people to think a certain way or believe certain things, and - as they usually appeal to emotions - are often very effective. However, fallacious arguments are built on flawed reasoning that is exposed when logic is applied. There are many types of logical fallacies, and philosophers as far back as Aristotle have recognised the need to detect and avoid them as essential - including ones such as the ad hominem fallacy.1
Ad hominem (Latin: ‘to the man’) fallacies are a popular response against arguments as they focus on attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself. In short, the theory is that if the person making the argument can be shown to be somehow defective, their argument must be defective, too. However, this is not necessarily the case. An argument may be perfectly valid, regardless of the individual making it and thus, to discount an argument for reasons other than its own merits, is fallacious.
Ad hominem arguments often take the form of a ‘personal attack’ – e.g., ‘why did you listen to him, he’s an idiot?!’ - but they can just as often be subtle: when confronted by a group of hippies protesting the Vietnam War and waving ‘Make Love, Not War’ signs, Richard Nixon responded: ‘By the looks of them, they couldn’t do either!’ Both of these responses are fallacious because – even if the arguer is biased or unintelligent or a group has demonstrable undesirable personal characteristics – unless these traits have a direct bearing on their argument, they are irrelevant. It may be true the person is an idiot, or that the hippies appear incompetent, but that doesn’t mean their arguments are incorrect. Nevertheless, these ad hominems ‘work’ and are continued to be used because they appeal to human emotion rather than logic and reason: they allow an easy response against an argument without having to take into account the validity of the argument itself. And, unfortunately, many people would rather ride their emotional response than think an argument through.
There are two basic types of ad hominems - circumstantial and tu quoque. Circumstantial ad hominems occur when an individual or corporation’s personal circumstances are noted in a way that implies or indicates a natural bias: ‘Tobacco company lawyers should not be believed when they say smoking doesn’t seriously affect your health – they’re just defending their own multi-million-pound pay checks!’ On the surface, it appears this argument is valid: it’s true that it is difficult to accept the veracity of a critical study funded by the very organisation it purports to investigate. However, as an argument it is fallacious. True, it’s hard to believe these lawyers, but not because they are hypocritical. Rather, to defeat this argument, one must look at the facts - not the people making them.
Tu quoque arguments (Latin: ‘you too’) are more precise, as they deliberately target the person or establishment making the claim rather than the claim itself:
Peter: ‘Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong?!
Emotionally, these arguments ‘work’ because they accuse an opponent of being guilty of the same offence they are condemning. However, this does not necessarily mean the argument is incorrect. Regardless of Bill’s predilection for roast beef and leather jackets, it may very well be that using animals for such purposes is morally wrong. Similarly, a parent who smokes while telling their child not to smoke is not incorrect: regardless of whether mother enjoys a Silk Cut or two makes no difference to the fact that the practice is unhealthy and the child should not start. It’s hypocritical, yes, but this doesn’t make the argument wrong.
Ad hominem fallacies are popular as argumentative strategies because they play on our sense of justice to expose the arguer as being both inconsistent and hypocritical. However, they are also lazy: arguments are either effective or not based entirely on their own merits; two wrongs do not make a right.
The Detour
Today’s Detour is to a full-length lecture (1:01:12) by Stanford professor of mathematics Tadashi Tokieda.2 Part of the Oxford Mathematics series, this video sees Tokieda using paper - folded, stacked, crumpled and torn - to ‘explore a diversity of phenomena, from magic tricks and geometry through elasticity and the traditional Japanese art of origami,’ to beyond. I’m no mathematician, but I do have an interest in it - especially the concept of various physical dimensions - and found this film both entertaining and approachable. It’s long, so I’d suggest dipping in and out, but it’s worth a watch if you have any interest in such things.
The Recommendation
Today’s Recommendation is The Princess Bride (1987). Directed by Rob Reiner and starring Cary Elwes, Robin Wright, Billy Crystal, Mandy Pantinkin and Wallace Shawn, the film - based on William Goldman’s 1973 eponymous novel - tells the story of a swashbuckling farm boy named Westley who - joined by various companions he meets along the way - must rescue his true love Princess Buttercup from the odious Prince Humperdinck. Released to critical if not commercial success, the film has since become a cult classic. It’s a fun watch on its own, but it’s included today because of this famous scene of a ‘battle of wits’ with the ‘imminently rational’ Sicilian outlaw, Vizzini:
The Battle of Wits (The Princess Bride)
The Princess Bride (1987) Trailer
The Princess Bride streams on various platforms.
The Sounds
Today’s playlist is composed of five brilliant tracks which - in their own way - embrace - whether towards a person or a concept - ad hominem: ‘You’re So Vain’ (Carly Simon, 1972), ‘I Hate Everything About You’ (Three Days Grace, 2003), ‘You Oughta Know’ (Alanis Morissette, 1995), ‘Bitch’ (The Rolling Stones, 1971), and ‘Killing in the Name’ (Rage Against the Machine, 1992).3 Enjoy!
The Thought
Today’s Thought is from Cicero:4
‘When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff.’
If you have a thought on this Thought - or any part of today’s issue - please leave a comment below.
And that’s the end of this Stop - I hope you enjoyed the diversion!
Thanks to everyone who subscribes - your interest and support is truly appreciated. If you like The Bus, please SHARE it with a friend or two.
If you haven’t climbed aboard The Bus, please do!
Until the next Stop …
If this introduction seems familiar, that’s because it’s almost note for note the intro to The Bus 3.1 (Logical Fallacies (I)) which examined the Slippery Slope argument. There are no official sources for today’s Stop - just references I’ve used over the years while teaching.
Born in Tokyo (1968), Tokieda began his career as a painter before training as a classical philologist in France where he became interested in mathematics. Following a Bachelor’s in Mathematics from Oxford and a PhD at Princeton, he has taught at Cambridge, Harvard and Stanford and is interested in popularising mathematics and physics. He’s fluent in Japanese, French and English - but also has a working knowledge of Greek, Latin, classical Chinese, Finnish, Spanish, and Russian. For a very interesting interview with him, see: Five Questions with Tadashi Tokieda (Stonybrook).
Mick Jagger appears on two of these tracks - lead on ‘Bitch’, but also backing on ‘You’re So Vain.’ Just saying. ‘Bitch’ in particular is worth a close listen - there is a lot going on in those 4 minutes - and the isolated trumpet at the end brings it all to a glorious close. All of which presages the pure vitriol of Rage Against the Machine - one of the best songs from the early 1990s.
Whether this is actually from Cicero or not is a matter of debate, but it sums up the whole ad hominem argument in a way.
Bryan, your curiosity never ceases to astound, even on repeat.