[ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures

[BillK]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 4:24 AM, Lee Corbin wrote:
> Stefano writes
>
>> Arguments ad personam are always more compelling than arguments ad rem.
>
> Ah. So thanks for removing a misunderstanding I had. I was inferring that
> "ad personam" and "ad hominem"
> were the same thing.   :-)           [1]
>


I think you have to remember that Stefano is a lawyer.
Legal argument is a strange beast that lives in a different world to
normal life.

Ad hominem is perfectly permissible in court, where it is called
impeaching a witness.
Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence, is the process of calling
into question the credibility of an individual who is testifying in a
trial.


In normal critical thinking (outside the legal environment),
there are several types of ad hominum argument.

Ad hominem (also called argumentum ad hominem or personal attack) Including:
      ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam)
      ad hominem circumstantial (also called ad hominem circumstantiae)
      ad hominem tu quoque (also called you too argument)


argumentum ad rem is the relevant appeal to evidence and truth and
thus means the opposite of *all* the irrelevant arguments (including
ad hominum).

<http://www.friesian.com/valley/fallacie.htm>

Quote:
While the previous kinds of arguments are all fallacies because they
are not relevant to the truth of the conclusion, they are not
therefore fallacies in every possible context. Beliefs are not always
based on actual evidence of truth, but often on other reasons which
may provide grounds for credibility, but not for truth. Thus the
argumentum ad hominem and argumentum ab auctoritate are forms of the
Genetic Fallacy that, in the context of belief, are not fallacies at
all. Impeaching a witness in a legal case is an ad hominem argument,
but as the credibility of the witness is reason for believing his
testimony, attacking his credibility is relevant to the situation.
----

As Jef Allbright waould say. 'It depends on the context'.


BillK