Prompt: Elaborate on two or mo

Some errors in reasoning are simply the result of the fact thatpeople aren’t perfect. Sometimes we hit the wrong letter on thekeyboard, sometimes we get on the wrong bus, sometimes we swing atthe ball and miss, and sometimes we draw the wrong conclusion.Stuff like this just happens. Sometimes, however, our errors arethe result of a fundamental problem that will cause us to repeatthe same mistakes over and over. E.g., you may not know how totype; you may not understand how to read the bus schedule, or youmay have a bad batting stance. In logic, mistakes due to somefundamental problem are called fallacies.

An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter another’sclaims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather thanaddressing the argument itself. True believers will often committhis fallacy by countering the arguments of skeptics by statingthat skeptics are closed minded. Skeptics, on the other hand, mayfall into the trap of dismissing the claims of UFO believers, forexample, by stating that people who believe in UFO’s are crazy orstupid.

A common form of this fallacy is also frequently present in thearguments of conspiracy theorists (who also rely heavily on ad-hocreasoning). For example, they may argue that the government must belying because they are corrupt.

It should be noted that simply calling someone a name orotherwise making an ad hominem attack is not in itself a logicalfallacy. It is only a fallacy to claim that an argument is wrongbecause of a negative attribute of someone making the argument.(i.e. “John is a jerk.” is not a fallacy. “John is wrong because heis a jerk.” is a logical fallacy.)

The term “poisoning the well” also refers to a form of adhominem fallacy. This is an attempt to discredit the argument ofanother by implying that they possess an unsavory trait, or thatthey are affiliated with other beliefs or people that are wrong orunpopular. A common form of this also has its own name – Godwin’sLaw or the reductio ad Hitlerum. This refers to an attempt atpoisoning the well by drawing an analogy between another’s positionand Hitler or the Nazis.

E.g. : Suppose a very rich person like Ross Perot gives a speechin which he argues that it is not such a great thing to be rich andthat, in fact, people who are poor are likely to live better liveson the whole. Of course, we want to respond: “Oh, sure, that’s easyfor you to say, but I don’t see you giving away all your money.”This is an abusive Ad Hominem, because we are attacking Perot as ahypocrite rather than examining the argument itself. It is alsoknown at the fallacy of Tu Quoque, which is Latin for “You do it,too.”

The basic structure of such arguments is as follows: Professor Xbelieves A, Professor X speaks from authority, therefore A is true.Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years ofexperience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making aspecific claim. The converse of this argument is sometimes used,that someone does not possess authority, and therefore their claimsmust be false.

In practice this can be a complex logical fallacy to deal with.It is legitimate to consider the training and experience of anindividual when examining their assessment of a particular claim.Also, a consensus of scientific opinion does carry some legitimateauthority. But it is still possible for highly educatedindividuals, and a broad consensus to be wrong – speaking fromauthority does not make a claim true.

This logical fallacy crops up in more subtle ways also. Forexample, UFO proponents have argued that UFO sightings by airlinepilots should be given special weight because pilots are trainedobservers, are reliable characters, and are trained not to panic inemergencies. In essence, they are arguing that we should trust thepilot’s authority as an eye witness.

There are many subtypes of the argument from authority,essentially referring to the implied source of authority. A commonexample is the argument ad populum – a belief must be true becauseit is popular, essentially assuming the authority of the masses.Another example is the argument from antiquity – a belief has beenaround for a long time and therefore must be true.

E.g. : Suppose I own a music store and am also an accomplishedmusician on several instruments. I sell pianos but no stringinstruments like guitars or cellos. You ask me what’s the bestinstrument to start out learning on and I say, unequivocally, apiano. When you ask me why, I say that you can trust me on this. Iplay all sorts of instruments and the piano is by far the best oneto start out on. In fact, I explain, that’s why I only sell pianos.Notice that in this situation I haven’t given you a single reasonfor believing the piano is the best instrument to learn on exceptmy authority. But, knowing that my livelihood depends on the saleof pianos, it would be wrong to accept my appeal to authority. Ihave what is commonly called a “conflict of interest.”