argumentum ad hominem


Also found in: Thesaurus, Legal.

argumentum ad hominem

(ˌɑːɡjʊˈmɛntʊm æd ˈhɒmɪˌnɛm)
n
1. (Logic) fallacious argument that attacks not an opponent's beliefs but his motives or character
2. (Logic) argument that shows an opponent's statement to be inconsistent with his other beliefs
3. (Logic) an instance of either of these
[literally: argument to the person]
References in classic literature ?
The supposition is of course preposterous; and I might answer by the argumentum ad hominem, and ask what should be done if a perfect kangaroo were seen to come out of the womb of a bear?
Ad hominem, which stands for the Latin term argumentum ad hominem, is basically a response to an argument that attacks the person's character rather than the logic or content of the argument.
To accomplish it, use fallacies generously: argumentum ad hominem, ad baculum, tu quoque.
That he singles one of his axioms out as an argumentum ad hominem, which is not a fallacy but a manner of presenting an argument, has to be considered in terms of the public communication of his new ethic, which via his "heuristics of fear" favors the prophecy of doom over that of hope when it comes to potential biotechnological and environmental problems.
W uses an abusive variant of argumentum ad hominem to denigrate H's reliability in the matter of helping their son with homework and his role as a parent, in general.
EN EL NUMERO 57 DE ALGARABIA HABLAMOS EN EXTENSO DEL ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM, (1) Y EN EL 58 VIMOS CUALES SON LAS FALACIAS FORMALES.
Elsewhere, Evans displays a touchy defensiveness and frequently enough resorts to the argumentum ad hominem that many of the reviewers of the original edition found distasteful.
Consider: argumentum ad hominem ("argument against the person"), attacking an opponent's character instead of addressing the issue under discussion; petitio principii ("begging the question"), asking a question which assumes an unproven point; and post hoc, ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this") asserting that, simply because one event followed, another, the former caused the latter.
Harrison misses the humour in Sterne's use of Locke: Sterne's comment on the inconsequentiality of Susannah's thoughts (|Well might Locke write a chapter on the imperfection of words') is no more a serious contribution to the theory of meaning than is his roguish suggestion that the argumentum fistulatorium be added to the logic textbooks alongside the argumentum ad hominem and the argumentum a fortiori intended as a serious contribution to logic.
Full browser ?