The fallacy happens when we connect the truth of a proposition to the person asserting it. However, Jane ignores these and focuses on Bill’s supposed character – he’s a big jerk. If we examine this exchange we can see that Bill’s arguments are sound and supported by what appears to be good evidence. Jane: Well, you’re a big jerk and don’t know anything, so we don’t have to go back to class. Jane: I don’t think we need to worry about it.īill: Well, the bell rang a few minutes ago. It is the weak form of arguing that many of us employed on our elementary school playgrounds such as this exchange:īill: I think we should go back to class now.
This type of fallacy is often used in political campaigns where candidates focus on the personal aspects of a candidate rather than his or her qualifications. An easy way to remember this fallacy is to think of it as the personal attack fallacy. The ad hominem fallacy occurs when we shift our focus from the premises and conclusions of the argument and focus instead on the individual making the argument. Without thinking too hard you can probably think of one counter-example. Therefore, all Republicans are conservatives.Īll liberals are Democrats. We must infer from the statement that some philosophers are not wise.Īll conservatives are Republicans. However, the error arises from the fact that it is not a known quantity. This statement is stronger because it allows for the possibility there are counter- examples. And since the fact of being wise is abstract, how do we truly know if one is wise or not? Consider how the statement changes with the use of a different quantifier: We can show the flaw in this statement by simply finding a counter-example. The focus is on the use of some sort of quantifying word such as “all” or “some.” Consider this example: \)įallacies of quantitative logic revolve around the grammatical structure of the proposition.
0 kommentar(er)
