Navigation
Identify why attacking a person instead of their argument is a mistake in logic.
Imagine you are in a heated debate about whether your school should have a longer recess. Instead of explaining why more play is bad, your opponent shouts, 'Don't listen to him—he's bad at soccer and smells like old cheese!' Did they actually prove you were wrong about recess?
In the world of logic, we want to focus on arguments, not the people making them. The term Ad Hominem is Latin for 'to the person.' This fallacy occurs when someone avoids a topic by attacking the character, background, or physical traits of their opponent.
Think of an argument like a math problem. If a person says , that statement is true regardless of whether the person is a hero or a villain. When someone uses an Ad Hominem, they are trying to 'poison the well' by making the speaker look bad so that the audience ignores the actual facts. It is a distraction technique used when someone doesn't have a strong enough argument to win on the merits of the case.
1. The Argument: Sarah says, 'We should plant more trees in the park because they provide shade and oxygen.' 2. The Attack: Mark responds, 'Sarah is a terrible artist, so her ideas for the park are probably garbage.' 3. The Flaw: Whether Sarah can draw or not has zero impact on the scientific benefits of trees (shade and oxygen).
Quick Check
What does the Latin phrase 'Ad Hominem' literally mean?
Answer
It means 'to the person.'
The most important thing to remember is that truth is independent of the speaker. A statement is either logically sound or it isn't. In formal logic, we might represent an argument as (If P, then Q).
If a person we dislike says , the answer doesn't suddenly become just because we don't like them! When you allow a personal attack to change your mind about a fact, you are falling for the fallacy. This is why judges in courtrooms often tell juries to ignore 'irrelevant character testimony.' They want the jury to focus on the evidence, not whether the defendant is a 'mean person' in their private life.
This is a specific type of Ad Hominem called Tu Quoque (you too). 1. The Argument: A doctor who smokes tells a patient, 'You should quit smoking because it increases your heart rate by beats per minute.' 2. The Attack: The patient says, 'Why should I listen to you? You smoke too!' 3. The Flaw: Even though the doctor is a hypocrite, the medical fact that smoking increases heart rate remains 100% true.
Quick Check
If a known liar tells you that 'Water freezes at ', is the statement false?
Answer
No, the statement is still true. The character of the speaker does not change the physical properties of water.
Our brains are wired to look for credibility. We naturally want to trust people we like and distrust people we don't. Fallacies like the Ad Hominem take advantage of this 'short-cut' in our thinking.
In a fast-paced debate, a personal attack can make an opponent feel defensive. If they start defending their character ('I do not smell like cheese!'), they have stopped defending their original point. This means the attacker has successfully hijacked the conversation. To stay logical, you must learn to identify the attack, name it, and steer the conversation back to the data and logic of the original claim.
1. The Argument: 'The city should invest in a new bridge because the current bridge has a structural integrity rating of only .' 2. The Attack: 'The engineer who wrote that report was fired from his last job for being late every day. We can't trust this report.' 3. The Challenge: While the engineer's habits are poor, the structural rating is based on physical measurements of steel and concrete. To disprove the argument, the opponent must show the measurements are wrong, not just that the engineer is a bad employee.
Which of the following is the best definition of an Ad Hominem fallacy?
Why is the 'Tu Quoque' (attacking a person for being a hypocrite) considered a fallacy?
If an argument is delivered by someone with a bad reputation, the argument is automatically logically invalid.
Review Tomorrow
Tomorrow morning, try to remember the Latin name for 'attacking the person' and think of one time you saw this happen in a movie or a commercial.
Practice Activity
Watch a short clip of a political debate or a social media comment thread. Count how many times people address the 'facts' versus how many times they attack the 'person'.