[PREV - DOWN_THE_SCALE]    [TOP]

BACK_TO_AD_HOMINEM

                                             August 11, 2010

Large numbers of commenters at krugman's blog want to
argue about current usage of "ad hominem" as synonmous
with personal insult:


James Currin, Stamford, Ct.
August 11th, 2010:

  "In the face of so much confusion it is necessary to
  inject some realism. In a scholarly article on the
  history of 'ad hominem, the writer concludes.'  In this
  whole tradition, which continued in logic textbooks of
  the 18th and 19th century (Nuchelmans 1993), there is not
  a hint that an argumentum ad hominem is a personal
  attack. It is not an argument against the opponent, but
  an argument to the opponent, i.e. to the commitments
  already made by the opponent, whether by unprompted
  assertion or by concession in response to a question. It
  is a perfectly legitimate way for a proponent to get the
  opponent to accept the consequences of those commitments,
  even if the proponent does not share them. It is not in
  itself mistaken, merely of limited probative value."


         I take it that the point is that the
         proponents earlier stated positions
         don't *logically* disprove a present
         stated position; but a contradiction
         between the two may be worth pointing
         out for other reasons.





--------
[NEXT - JAMES_HANSEN_VS_LINUS_PAULING]