Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
Argumentum ad hominem
This entry was inspired partly by some comments in my last entry which mused about some possible unintended consequences of compulsory annuities. Bart, one of the authors of the blog Perspective Unlimited, was attacked by another reader for his opinions in my last entry. The attack was not on Bart’s argument but rather, his background as a civil servant.
The following is the definition of argumentum ad hominem from Wikipedia:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the person”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
I do not agree with engaging in argumentum ad hominem because most of the time, such an approach is unproductive. Besides, it is my observation that people tend to be impolite, sometimes to the point of being downright nasty when engaging in ad hominem arguments.
Disagreeing with one another is something very normal, and I suspect a large part of disagreement arises because people have different educational backgrounds and life experiences. Whether we realise it or not, our opinions are grounded in what we know and have experienced. No two people are the same in their education or life experiences. That being said, how can a person then criticise another person’s background? Unless one has gone through the exact same education and life experience, one cannot fully understand why another person made an argument the way they did.
Does this then means a person’s background is irrelevant in an argument? I don’t think so. I think it is important to know just so that we can appreciate why the argument was made in a certain manner. As I mentioned in the earlier paragraph, we can never fully understand the reasons behind a person’s argument. However, if we understand the person’s background, we can appreciate the direction of the argument, even though we might disagree with the argument itself.
It does take quite a fair amount of effort not to engage in ad hominem arguments. I suspect this is because it is so much easier to attack a person’s character or background and therefore, we have an instinctive urge to do just that. By targeting the opponent’s background, one does not bring to the table his/her opinion, which means that one will not have to answer tough questions on why they hold that opinion.
I admit I’m guilty of engaging in ad hominem arguments at times. It’s usually not conscious, though, which is why I have the conjecture that it’s an instinctive urge. I do suppose human beings are not perfect and the only solution would be for people to help one another and remind each other that argumentum ad hominem is a logically fallacy when seeing such an act being committed.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Aaron Ng on 12/10/2007 at 10:12 am, and is filed under Perspective. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 2 years ago
Actually I agree with spyer’s comments
From what I read, most of the time bart hides behind the economic perspective as an excuse. Half the time when I read his post and he does that. I think his perspective makes no sense but his defence would be ‘this is economics 101′ for you.
For eg he says risk pooling is good therefore the previous post was not a reasons against CAS. I seriously find that argument flawed. At the end of the day this is the economic perspective and probably people with no Phd are too swallow to understand ???
I would have preferred if the debated have gone on from there and not just telll us that this is an economic perspective. Keep the communication going in understandable terms. Isn’t that the goal of communication? To help each other understand? We might not agree but we can understand each other.
Seriously, if he is from the ministry he really got to have guts to blog against government policy. No disrepsect , I do know he is in a tough position but that does not mean that he just use his Phd as an excuse for not communicating in peasant lingo.
about 2 years ago
‘I do not agree with engaging in argumentum ad hominem because most of the time, such an approach is unproductive. Besides, it is my observation that people tend to be impolite, sometimes to the point of being downright nasty when engaging in ad hominem arguments.’
This is only one way to be nasty, infact if you really look around, there are far worst ways of being downright rude and crude.
One of them is by ignoring people and treating them as if they dont exist. Of course, let’s be honest, we all live in a world of risk, if you ignore someone like Bart that is OK, but if you ignore someone like the Brotherhood Press, look what will happen.
My point is there are many many ways to be rude and crude to ppl, this is just one way. Why single out one way, when there are so many ways that you remain silent abt?
As for Bart he can only show off here, let him go and do the same with the monkeys in th bro, see what will happen to him, I think in 3 minutes, they will use him as a trampoline, if you think you are smart, there is always someone smarter just around corner.
Bye
about 2 years ago
palmist an others,
This mindset of hiding behind academic qualification, or some artificially drawn domain (especially so-call politics and economy), or some lofty notion of objectivity is very much in-grained in the Singaporean psyche.
(a) Academic qualification
————————–
I am guessing that it may have something to do with a culture of crunched mentality. Somehow it seemed to me that many Singaporean seemed incapable of believing that anyone without a qualification (i.e. I mean possessing a paper to say you are qualified to a certain level) are just as capable as anyone with qualification to form lucid and coherent arguments or the often use Singapore phrase “right arguments”. In my personal opinion, one of the reason I left Singapore, is too much of this reverence to academic achievement and not enough focus on the quality of the argument. I might also add a very sad state of affair.
As an aside, you often hear claims of current Singaporean being more “educated” than the previous generations. I sometime wonder if that was true? Maybe it is just a case of more being “certified” (i.e. possessing more of the paper certificate) than a case of being truly more “educated” (i.e. possessing superior thought processes)?
(b)Politics/Economic Divide
—————————
I suppose seen from the PAP’s perspective of making this artificial divide between the two is useful as it helps to close any awkard debate. I concede that it could be argued that the PAP did not invent this divide but I am convinced the PAP could have exploited it to its advantage.
Maybe it has something to do with the fear-factor and this is why you find such divide so emphasised in face-to-face discussion. I suppose it helps people on the fence avoid confrontation or in Singapore term “cause offence”.
Recently I pointed to Bart, which I emphasised is not a personal attack but a general observation, that it is not possible take politics out as the starting assumption of any real world economic argument. Of course, if one is trying to provide a “dummy’s guide” explanation about a modelling technique than some degree of abstraction is inevitable. The danger is trying to conflate a modelling technique and not accounting for its assumption, with trying to use the model to explain real world situation.
In my opinion, I think if Bart is guilty of inflaming any debate, assuming that he is, it may be his attempt to use simplistic model to rationalise a real world problem. Here I like to point out that inflaming a debate is not necessarily a bad thing too. It may even help to develop alternative viewpoints.
Nevertheless there is no need to attack him personally. In any case, he is entitled to his view just like anyone else. If any debate were to be had, it should be aimed at de-constructing his opinion and not his background.
(c) Objectivity
—————-
Objectivity is a lofty goal but like everything in life it must be use sparingly if it is not to be debase. In any case, the world will be a sadder and, possibly, more deceitful if one is NOT WILLING (not the same as NOT ALLOWED) to express one’s opinions. Otherwise how can the world progress or learn right from wrong.
In my opinion, I think “objectivity” defence has been used to mask one’s true opinion and thus, be seen as sitting on the fence, rather than try to bring a some intellectual rigour into any debate. For example, if you look at Littlespeck, KTM, etc sites you will see disclaimer to being political. Yet when you read their posting, whilst they don’t go out to be so, they nevertheless then to give the benefit of the doubt to either the establishment view or, quite possibly, their own slant. Littlespeck, in particular, has this classic style of raising one point and then deliberately countering with another point. When he has difficulty finding a counter argument, he either resort to polemics or glib statements (i.e. “The majority of Singaporean are conservative by nature”). Is this necessarily intellectually healthy?
In my opinion, and others may disagree, I find this approach not helpful. To me if one wants to be objective (i.e. inject a rationale argument), one simple needs to state one assumption and even if it was to reinforce one’s biases so be it. At least from a reader’s perspective, one knows where the flow of argument may have originated. The reader can come to his/her own conclusion. There is no need to seen to be “objective”, for the sake of being seen, by contriving a counter argument simply to counter one own views. Let others bring out the counter arguments, why do the work for other people. On this point, I applaud Bart and Aaron for stating their background. At least when I read their blog I can guess the source of their assumptions.
One the point about intellectual rigour, personally I would offer to marks to YawningBread.
PS: Oh Aaron, disagreement is not necessarily a function of educational background and life experience. It could also simply be a case of someone discovering flaws in another’s argument
about 2 years ago
I applaud Bart and Aaron for stating their background. At least when I read their blog I can guess the source of their assumptions.
That just means you are stupid.
about 2 years ago
It also means you have very little imagination and cannot read between the lines. It also means that you have just elided abt 90% of the blogs out there and it also means that you need to be spoon fed.
How is that for Ad hominen?
about 2 years ago
Show me one single assumption – It will never happen bc you are suddenly going to slink into some little rat hole when it suits you.
I have NEVER EVER even read a single article or post by either Aaron with even anything resembling an fractionale assumption.
So where did you get that from? You think it is so simple, you write and it is?
Wrong beat lah
about 2 years ago
show me, I am waiting…but you know what nothing will happen and that just abt nails you dead!…dont talk rubbish!
about 2 years ago
Ah Kow,
Regarding the final sentence in your reply, I do agree with that. However, I have a counter question for you. Where do ‘flaws’ come from? Some people might offer logic as an answer but what exactly makes ‘logic’ necessarily right? I am of the opinion that it’s a general consensus that makes what we understand to be ‘logic’ right. I’m more inclined to think that when people disagree, it’s not because of flaws or bad logic but rather, differences in assumptions to begin with. Whether the assumptions are “right” or “wrong” is of course another completely different matter.
about 2 years ago
Another one got happy slapped
about 2 years ago
I think it is time to ask the question again darkness?
about 2 years ago
Aaron,
To me, a flaw is a result in the inconsistencies or a lack of coherence developed from the flow of an argument. For example, a bleeding obviously inconsistent statement like: a person claiming to have gone to the moon, said he discovered the moon had no water, but than claim to have enjoyed a swim in a pool. In the absence of fact (i.e. whether the claim of “no water” or “having a swim” are indeed true), we could make an argument that that there appears to be flaw, or inconsistencies, in the logic of the statement. In this bleeding obvious statement we don’t need to have the life experience of going to the moon to note the inconsistency. So a debate can then be had for the originator of the statement about the inconsistencies. At this juncture, one need not necessarily come to right/wrong aspect of the statement. But if the debate stops at that point, then the best guess is the statement is flawed.
At a later stage if indeed the originator could verify that there was no water on the moon and that he/she had a swim in the space craft, than the statement could turn out to be right. Hence, the point about a debate is discovery that arises from a inconsistencies.
Personally, I tend to steer clear of the right/wrong view of things. To me rightness or wrongness has much to do with deviation from the “facts” about a point or from a particular viewpoint. But the problem with the “facts” is how verifiable the source of the “facts” are. That can be tricky one. So when one speaks of right/wrong it can only be taken with a benefit of a doubt.
To summarise, when I said something is flawed, I do not mean something is wrong. Rather it means inconsistencies.
PS: For a real world example of what I mean by flaws. Consider the statement by a Minister, Raymond Lee urging against the politicisation of transport issues but then rejecting proposal to have fare revision before elections. Disregarding the right or wrong of the minister to reject the proposal, can anyone spot the potential flaws or inconsistencies in the statement? Does one need a political science degree to spot the potential flaw? Does one need to be a consumer of public transport to spot potential flaw? (NOTE: These are rhetorical questions to illustrate a point not a new thread for debate).