The real fallacy is in calling insufficient proof inadmissible evidence. Perfectionism leads to paralysis; another fallacy is that you have to be 100% convinced before you can make an intelligent decision.
Those who want to dismiss Ad Hominem are covering up their own deficient personalities and should not be trusted. Formal logic is a fraud; it relies too much on selected connections. It begs the question, the process, and the answer.
In real life, Ad Hominem is the most valuable clue and an incentive to pick apart a self-interested argument. Like other evidence, it has to be backed up by further investigation. Only when that fails to corroborate the Ad Hominem approach can it be dismissed. For example, Reagan's failure to punish Hezbollah for massacring Marines could have been attributed to being soft on every enemy except Communists, but he refuted that line of logic when he attacked Libya.
2006-07-20
18:17:37
·
5 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Philosophy