Come on, Foghorn Leghorn? I cant be the first only one that noticed. — DingoJones

Ah say, son...A leghorn is a type of chicken. It is my understanding they came originally from Legorno in Italy. Thus leghorn.

First of all, please use paragraph breaks. It makes posts a lot easier to read and more people will read them. A wall of text is daunting.

Every one of us has ancestors who lived in Africa. They started to move out into the rest of the world 100,000ish years ago. They got to Australia about 50 thousand years ago. Between 10 and 15 thousand years ago they moved through Alaska into Canada, the US, and on down to Central and South America. About 2,000 years ago, people who started out in China got in boats and populated Oceania.

People in Hungary speak a language related to Finnish which originally came from northern Russia via northern Scandinavian. Those languages, plus almost all languages in Europe grew out of language originally from India. People in Madagascar speak a language closely related to Malaysians. People in Turkey speak a language closely related to Kazakhstanis.

I'm reading a really good set of books now, "The Mongoliad" by Neal Stephenson and several others. If you have ever read any of Stephenson's work, you know that he likes to teach us stuff. In these books, he is teaching us about the Mongol invasion of Europe in the 13th century. The book centers on 1241, the height of the invasion. The Mongols took over China, Korea, Siberia, and Europe as far east as Poland. Their plan was to go to the Western Sea, the Atlantic. They probably would have made it except their Khan's kept dying. Whenever that happened, all the leaders had to head back to Mongolia to elect a new one.

The Mongol's were skilled fighters. Relentless and brutal. They killed millions of people - men, women, children indiscriminately. If there was any resistance at all, they just killed everyone. People thought it was the end of the world. They, along with the Huns back in the 6th Century (if I remember correctly) mixed up the ethnic makeup of the entire "civilized" world unless you count Mesoamerica. The Turkish language came from Central Asia - Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, all those other stans.

Then, of course, the Europeans brought black people from Africa to the new world.

This has been going on since the beginning of civilization. I live outside of Boston. When I go into town, I see Indians, Pakistanis, Bangla Deshis, Koreans, Brazilians, Chinese, Japanese, Burmese, Cameroonians, Congolese, and on and on. I love it. There are so many good, inexpensive ethnic restaurants. Women from other cultures are beautiful. Listening to all the voices on the subway is like travelling around the world. Many of the people are happy to talk about where they came from and how they got here.

Better get used to it.

So many paragraphs just to say "I don't like race mixing, and you shouldn't either". — StreetlightX

I understand your uneasiness, but I'm not sure your hackle-raising is justified. We'll see how this shakes out, if you'll let it.

So why is one tolerated but not the other? — IanBlain

I don't know anyone who condemns others for killing bugs. I'm sure there are some. I don't kill them unless they're causing me trouble. I had a friend who said he was willing to spray for cockroaches in his apartment, but he didn't step on them. He said it didn't serve any useful purpose and it didn't make him feel better about having bugs.

I'm not a vegetarian. I eat meat. I recognize that my life, and those of most people I know, are based on killing animals, including fish. I hunted ducks, geese, and dove with my family when I was a kid, although I haven't in a long time. We ate what we shot. I never had the patience for fishing. When you hunt or fish, you take direct responsibility for the meat you eat. I don't see anything wrong with that.

I don't have much respect for people who kill large animals for trophies. I don't have any particular desire to see animals die. Whatever your thoughts on catch and release, it seems a relatively benign sport. Whether or not it's reasonable, I have more empathy for other mammals than I do for fish. Even if a lot of the fish die, a lot don't. They will go on to repopulate the fishery.

An ad hominem argument is not necessarily unreasonable. It would be reasonable for me to question the knowledge of someone I didn't know who made a medical diagnosis for me.

Having a clear focus on fallacies and biases as solutions to avoid "bullshitting mosh pits that leads nowhere", is in my opinion a positive thing for increasing the quality. I see no reason to fear them other than for those with a notion about their own ability to create a reasonable argument. — Christoffer

I guess it comes down to that - I do not believe a focus on fallacies will improve the quality of discussions. If you think someone has their facts wrong or has provided inadequate justification, say so and explain why. If you think someone has made an incorrect inference or deduction, say so and explain why. Just shouting out "logical fallacy" doesn't convince anyone. Too many boys have cried "wolf" before. Everybody knows there's a good chance you're using the term incorrectly because so many others have. Just explain in regular language what your problem with the argument is.

Jeesus, some people here are just trying to help you, as per your OP request. Not to criticize you. — baker

Seriously, I thought you were joking - criticizing my ideas about ad hominem arguments by making ad hominem arguments against me. It would have been a great joke.

“Credential” literally means “what generates trust”. The best credential in any field of expertise is not the formal, but rather the informal one: testimony by ppl who were helped. Someone with supposed knowledge that is specialized, not part of general knowledge, can argue to the ppl either honestly or dishonestly to whatever end, good or ill, he wishes; for he knows that they do not have experience of the narrow specialty he can claim to be expert in. — Leghorn

On the other hand, the woods are full of people who will give testimony that they have been helped by aromatherapy, crystals, homeopathy, faith healing, weight watchers, and on and on. The fact that we can't always trust credentials doesn't mean they don't have ay value.

My wife is a nurse. I can't imagine how anyone survives the health care system without a nurse in the family.

a group of people sits at a restaurant discussing "determination and free will"...It's just a casual discussion about the concept. — Christoffer

a bullshitting mosh pit that leads nowhere. — Christoffer

Depending on the particular discussion, it is not uncommon for these to be good descriptions of what goes on here on the forum. It's an informal situation and rules can be looser.

Demanding philosophical scrutiny and pointing out fallacies is meant to increase the quality of the other speaker. If their argument is of low quality, pointing out fallacies means pointing out the flaws in the argument until the argument is without those flaws. — Christoffer

I don't think waving the logical fallacy yellow card is a very effective way to improve the quality of discussions. First off, people don't know what they mean. When they think they know what one means, they're often wrong. They use them in incorrect situations. Solution - describe the problem with the argument rather than just labelling it.

Philosopher 1 - You've never taken a philosophy course. That undermines your credibility. Why should I listen to your argument?

Philosopher 2 - My education is not relevant to the argument I have made. Please respond to what I've written.

Philosopher 1 - I don't know how to say this nicely, but you sound a bit ... naive.

I think it would do you good to read some books on critical thinking.

Here's a nice one: — baker

WOW!! You're really good at this.

It seems your issue is specifically with appeal to authority (implicitly on your part!), because this same theme keeps coming up in your posts. — baker

Yes. I think ad hominem arguments overlap with appeals to authority. My attitude is that an appeal to authority is appropriate sometimes.

I don't know how to say this nicely, but you sound a bit ... naive. A bit like a kid in a candy store who can't decide what to choose. — baker

I don't know what you mean. Hey, wait a minute!!! Isn't calling me "naive" an ad hominem argument!!! You did this on purpose didn't you?

It's rather that you don't raise enough questions about yourself and about why you're reading ro discussing something. — baker

I don't know what this means either.

Part of thinking critically is determining your own intentions and your own reasons for reading something or engaging in discussion about it. But given what you say above, you seem like someone who has a chaotic, unsystematic approach to reading and discussing. No amount of other people proving their credentials, or you proving their lack of those can make up for your own lack of clarity about what you want to get out of a conversation. — baker

I'm trying to figure out whether this is an ad hominem argument too. I think it is. Boy. This is fun.

What about this?

"The growth on you leg is benign. Just rub some of this on it ."

"Are you a doctor?"

"Nope. I'm a janitor, and barely passed Grade 10 decades ago."

"You're an idiot. You're uneducated, yet you have the effrontery to make claims about things you can't understand and for which you possess no formal credentials."

"All true. I'm dull, anti-intellectual, and I'm both old and ugly. Now, back to my assertion...."

@SophistiCat & @Janus What about this?

SophistiCat: I believe in the Golden Rule - do to others as you would have them do to you.

Janus: That's bullshit. You beat your kids, treat your employees like crap, and cheat your customers.

Is that a legitimate argument?

If you bite, then you must put aside questions about qualifications and assess the argument on its own merit. But you don't have to bite - you could decide that giving a serious consideration to the argument isn't worth your time. Refusing to play doesn't break the rules of the game, since there is no rule that you must play. — SophistiCat

I don't think biting or quitting are my only choices, although I do avoid argument now that I would have jumped into a year or two ago.

As I've said, because the forum is informal and lots of stuff gets discussed here, many of the questions hinge on questions of fact. When that happens, a persons qualifications, experience, or education may be relevant. Example - people keep claiming that Einstein was wrong about the speed of light because the big bang happened 14 billion years ago but the universe is 45 light years across. I've read explanations of why this is, and I sort of understand them, but it still bothers me. If, in response to one of these claims, I say "I don't really understand all of this, but I don't think you do either, so, I'll stick with Einstein." That is an ad hominem argument which I think is appropriate.

This is an inappropriate example. Of course a person's expertise is an important factor in any decision as to whether to listen to their purportedly expert advice. But the ad hominem fallacy is usually committed in contexts where there is no definable of certifiable expertise, or at least not the kind of expertise which guarantees or at least produces tendencies towards consensus of opinion. Philosophy is such an enterprise. An example of the ad hominem fallacy would be saying that if Heidegger was a Nazi, then he could not have said anything philosophically important or interesting. — Janus

I'm trying to check out the limits of what "ad hominem" means. The example I used is the type that is generally mentioned in discussions of the "fallacy" to show it is not always a fallacy. So it is not an inappropriate example.

On the other hand, you're right. The main thing I want is to understand what "ad hominem" means on the forum. There are questions of facts raised here. On the forum, because it's informal and not very rigorous, arguments don't generally stand by themselves. The credibility and basis of knowledge of members is sometimes an issue.

When arguing with someone who is less capable than oneself, nothing is to be gained by making much of it. It does not increase the strength of an argument to do so. Socrates is a good example to follow. He casted ridicule without reference to his interrogators' deficiencies. That is how it is done. — Valentinus

I think a distinction must be made here between theoretical and practical thinking: if I want to know about education, I read Rousseau; if instead I want someone to raise my child, I hire a good and loving nanny. — Leghorn

My answer to the two of you is the same - I think there are times when personal or professional facts about a person are relevant to the legitimacy of their argument or opinion. The example often given is court proceedings. Typically, technical witnesses are not allowed to testify unless they can show they are appropriately qualified.

The fallacy of the artificial example. Some things just don't happen in the real world. Keep it real. — baker

Dr. Baker: Mr. Clark, you have an inflamed spleen. I recommend you take this medication once a day till it resolves itself.

Mr. Clark: I'd like to see your med school diploma please.

If, however, one were to assume that a person's academic credentials or lack thereof is a reason to dismiss their claim at the onset, then one is venturing into the territory of the fallacious ad hominem. — baker

Dr. Baker: Mr. Clark, you have a bent framerjamet. I recommend you eat one dog turd a day till it resolves itself.

Mr. Clark: I'd like to see your med school diploma please.

The ad hominem is using the insult as a reason to not accept the argument being made as a valid argument. — Harry Hindu

An ad hominem argument does not have to be an insult. Here's one of my favorite ad hominem arguments. "But you're a cashier." Fairly long ( minute 30 seconds), so you might want to skip it.

But framing an argument as invalid because someone is less competent than oneself can only be gratuitous to any point established to support the view. — Valentinus

That's the main question I'm trying to get at - when is it reasonable to raise questions about something personal about someone as an argument. If someone were to say "Einstein was wrong about the speed of light," I think it would be reasonable for me to ask how the person is qualified to make that statement.

I thought ego, superego, and id are referring to one's consciousness and subconsciousness. All of them are parts of ones self. If they were independent minds, one do not have A mind in the beginning. — ltlee1

I was responding to this:

What ways have we tried to divide the mind? — TiredThinker

Freud's psychoanalytic approach is one such way. I wasn't expressing an opinion on his ideas one way or the other.

If any such activities trigger neural network in the language center, it would appear as stream of consciousness per William James. If not, one behaves as if he or she is an automaton. — ltlee1

This is not my understanding of how it works. This probably is not the place to get into another discussion of consciousness. Those discussions generally don't go anywhere productive.

Well, this is just a philosophy discussion forum, not the Holy Inquisition. — baker

As you well know, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Insults constitute ad hominems i.e. dishing out insults when an argument is underway is ad hominem. — TheMadFool

The term "ad hominem" refers to arguments. An insult is not an argument.

What ways have we tried to divide the mind? And can they operate separately from one another? — TiredThinker

It is a human characteristic that we like to divide things. That's analysis. It's what we do. We just can't help ourselves.

Probably the most famous way of dividing the mind comes from Freud - id, ego, superego. His approach is looked down on these days,

Personally, I divide my mind into two parts. 1) Those things I am aware of and 2) those things I am not aware of. I am constantly aware of the results of things that happen in my mind without my attention. Most of the work of our minds is handled without our awareness.

Thus, to attack someone (I think you used the word "insult") in an argument is to completely miss the point - you're fallaciously insinuating that character bears on the how good an argument is but that's false. — TheMadFool

The term "ad hominem" applies to arguments. An insult is not an argument and is not an ad hominem attack.

But Clark, all those statements are true! I WANT to be a smart East Coast urban sophisticate, but what with oat chaff in my hair, and bullshit between my ears, it's too difficult to pull it off. I've never been accused of being suave. I've never started a trend. Nothing I said went viral. I'm a non-influencer incarnate and incognito. — Bitter Crank

A new logical fallacy - the midwestern self-deprecatory self-ad hominem.

Once a matter is deferred to other people and their credentials or lack of them, the argument is weaker than one made by not relying upon those references. — Valentinus

Agreed, but there are times when credentials are relevant.

Where did I say this? I said: — Christoffer

Yes. I was overstating the case for rhetorical effect.

We can go back and forth in deciding when a personal attack is an appropriate argument. It would just be easier if people were clearer and didn't use jargon like "ad hominem." Instead of saying "That's an ad hominem argument," say "My educational status is not relevant to the argument I am making." The idea of a logical fallacy makes it easy for people on both sides not to face the real problems with inappropriate arguments.

The same rationale is why they exist. If a person has a legitimate argument then they wouldn't need to use a logical fallacy to convey it. Instead of explaining why this particular slippery slope argument is BS it's easier to generalize. It's like the philosophical equivalent of protesting being labeled a liar when you are not telling the truth. — Cheshire

If you're saying people call things logical fallacies because their too lazy to be more specific about their objections, I agree with you.

That is a matter of debate. But you could, for example, start with words and expressions that fall under the general category of "invective" or "insult" and that are instantly recognizable as such by most people. — Apollodorus

As you say, it's pretty clear to me when someone is just being insulting. It is less clear when it might be appropriate to raise questions about someone's personal characteristics in an argument.

This is a well thought out, clear, and useful discussion. Thanks.

As a general principle, insults and ad hominems do not contribute to civilized dialogue and I think they should not be allowed on a forum. — Apollodorus

Which brings us back to my original concern - What should be considered an ad hominem argument and when, if ever, is it appropriate.

After all, common folks (David Hume called them "vulgar") don't feel the need to justify their beliefs, why should I? — Wheatley

Justification is needed when time comes to use knowledge as the basis for action. Actions have risks, consequences. I can't make a reasoned decision about the possible outcome of an action unless I understand the factual basis of my understanding, the uncertainties associated with it, and the justification for it.

If you said that bartricks was not worth listening to on account of him being an obnoxious dimwit, you would not committing an ad hominem fallacy - on the contrary, you would be very reasonable. You would be committing the fallacy if you said that batricks' argument was refuted on account of him being an obnoxious dimwit, but who ever does that? — SophistiCat

Um... Hmm...Well... No comment.

I look at this Wiki page at least a few times a year, and I can say it has been changed a lot over time. Have you read the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Criticism_as_a_fallacy and the references for it? — baker

Yes, I did read it. Here it is.

Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue, as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.

The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning (discussing facts about the speaker or author relative to the value of his statements) is essential to understanding certain moral issues due to the connection between individual persons and morality (or moral claims), and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning (involving facts beyond dispute or clearly established) of philosophical naturalism.

I think this gets to the heart of the difficulties in the way we use the term - the ambiguity and uncertainty.

Sure, but whence this desire to build an empire, whence the motivation for it, whence the justification for the killing, raping, and pillaging? — baker

As far as I can tell, as soon as people started gathering in large groups, their leaders started wanting the groups and the area controlled to get larger. There have been hundreds of empires throughout history. I'm reading a neat book right now - "The Mongoliad" by Neal Stephenson and others. It's about the Mongol invasion of the west in the 1200s. This relatively small band of people took over everything from India to Poland. It lasted for two Khans and then dissolved when one of them died. It kept popping up in different locations in different incarnations for a couple of hundred years. There have been a bunch of empires - Roman, Hunic, Holy Roman, British, French, Spanish, Uyghur, many Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Moghul, Russian, and on an on. Let's not forget Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. I don't understand it, but it's just the way people are.

Many thanks for such a masterly reply to my question which guided me towards remembering what I first read back in the early 1970s when I started to read philosophy at the new British Open University and found that wonderful arrogant piece from Ayer’s Language Truth and Logic that, “metaphysical statements such as “God exists” are unverifiable and meaningless.” — Brian Leahy

I'm a little lost in this conversation, which is fine. For what it's worth, my memory of Collingwood is that he identified "There is a God" as an absolute presupposition for the practice of science. It was my understanding that he meant that as a statement that we live in a lawful universe. @tim wood - Do you remember this? Do you see it the same way I do?

That's true but you can have religious empires so the question is where to draw the line between the empire building and the religion as the source.
I think its a worthwhile distinction to make. — DingoJones

Agreed.

Looking at the list in Wikipedia, it seems to me that most wars are caused by empire building, even when the entities involved have strong religious connections, e.g. the Muslim expansion into India. I would be interested to hear differing opinions from someone who knows better than I.

It's so interesting to see you all focusing on this out of the entirety of my argument. It's like you don't get my point whatsoever. — Christoffer

I didn't think I had anything of interest to offer about your entire argument. It's not something I have strong feelings about. On the other hand, I am quick to pick up on specious arguments against religion, "the church starts all the wars" in particular.