Centuries later, Galileo Galilei and John Locke each independently discussed ad hominem arguments in their works.Īn ad hominem argument is often structured to seem like a relevant statement or rebuttal in a discussion. This type of fallacy is where the flaw lies in the application of an argument rather than in the logic of the argument itself.Īd hominem arguments have been recognized as logical fallacies for centuries, with Aristotle writing about them in his work Sophistical Refutations, from 350 BCE. More broadly, ad hominem is an informal fallacy. That means that its flaw is its lack of relevance to the discussion in which it’s used. Among logical fallacies, ad hominem is a fallacy of relevance. If it’s true and relevant to the discussion, it’s not a logical fallacy. Calling attention to an arguer’s lack of expertise in the subject they’re arguing about or noting a conflict of interest that prevents them from being an unbiased participant in the discussion are two examples of this.įor example, you might write in your argumentative essay that the local candidate running on a pro-development platform has ties to local construction firms.
While this post focuses on ad hominem arguments as logical fallacies, it’s important to acknowledge that there are legitimate uses of this rhetorical strategy that are not fallacious. Person 2: You’re way too nervous about driving at night, so of course, you don’t want to drive.
#Red herring logical fallacy examples driver
Person 1: I’m tired of always being the driver whenever we go out as a group. Grammarly helps you communicate confidently Write with Grammarly What is the ad hominem logical fallacy?Īd hominem (Latin for “to the person”) is a category of argumentative strategies that involve criticizing an opponent’s character, motive, background, or other personal attributes instead of their argument’s content.
0 kommentar(er)
