The first example you give: "John believes X etc." may be a personal attack but it is also a deductively valid argument. It may be unsound depending depending on the value of X. If X = "the moon is made of green cheese" or chose whatever false belief you think makes someone an asshole and the argument is sound even though a personal attack. The second case is an ad hominem -the abusive variety- as noted. The third example makes no sense. John supports the use of ethanol in gasoline. John profits from the use of ethanol in gasoline. Therefore the use of ethanol in gasoline is false. If Cox were able to recognize arguments he probably would have said. John claims that we ought to support the use of ethanol in gasoline. However John is also a farmer who profits when ethanol is used in gasoline. Therefore we should not believe his claim that we ought to support it. (or alternatively it is false that we ought to support it) This would also be an ad hominem argument what is called the circumstantial type. Ad hominem arguments are simply not deductively valid. In certain instances such as this they may have some inductive probity. Because of John's circumstances and our common sense knowledge of human nature etc. there is some probablility that John is biased. Environmentalists use this type of argument ad nauseam against Monsanto whenever they claim studies show no ill health effects from consuming GM food or against any other conclusion from which they benefit. Right wingers argue the same about any conclusion about the benefits of increased wages, etc. argued for by unions simply noting that the unions profit from increased wages or whatever. Monsanto's conclusions are not any more refuted by environmentalists circumstantial ad hominems then are union arguments for higher wages refuted by right wing ad hominems.
Cheers, Ken Hanly -- Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Personal attacks are not ad hominem arguments. Ad > hominem arguments are > a logical fallacy. To illustrate: > > John believes X. X is wholly false. Anyone who > believes it is an > asshole. John is an asshole. This is a personal > attack but it is NOT an > ad hominem argument. > > John is an asshole. John believes X. Therefore X is > false. > > That is an ad hominem argument. And it is > fallacious. Anyone who uses > such an argument is a stupid asshole. > > John supports X. John profits from X. Therefore X is > false. That is a > mixture. It is a false argument re X but a > reasonable suggestion for > exploring X further. > > Assholes like to use fancy Latin terms that they > don't understand the > meaning of. > > Leigh's arguments are not worth attacking. Let them > lie and stink. > > Carrol > Blog: http://kenthink7.blogspot.com/index.html Blog: http://kencan7.blogspot.com/index.html
