Ad Hominem

Ad hominem = attack the man.

This is a perfectly acceptable tactic in argumentation, provided the subject is indeed the man being attacked.  It is not valid, however, when used to attack the messenger or a related circumstance.

Acceptable attacks:

John McCain is too out of touch with the average American.

Barack Obama does not have enough experience.

Of course, those are extremely subjective and would not be convincing without evidence.  The fact that you’ve made an assertion about an individual is not in and of itself Ad Hominem.  It’s when you introduce ‘facts’ about a person as evidence to back up your assertion that ad hominem comes into play.  Here are unacceptable attacks that abuse the ad hominem fallacy:

John McCain is lying about drilling, because he took money from Big Oil.

Barack Obama is from Chicago, and is therefore part of a corrupt machine.

In this case, McCain’s acceptance of funding does not equate to proof that his statement is false.  Both statements could in fact be true.  The degree to which you want to believe him might be a fair question, but that is a subjective call and not an objective proof.

To another degree, it might well be that Obama is part of a corrupt machine.  But it does not follow that everyone from Chicago automatically is.

I mention this because Ad Hominem is a great ‘gateway drug’ into the world of self-induced political haze.  Every party has its shady characters, and all you have to do is tie your opponent to the worst of the other side and make political hay.  It’s a technique that shortcuts real causation and proof — it’s the slippery slope that leads to greater polarization and decreased understanding.

The classic examples come about with those who have become highly-charged and demonized.  Mention Al Gore or Michael Moore with just about anything, and watch the right go apoplectic trying to denounce it.  Likewise, see what happens with Karl Rove or Rush Limbaugh are tied into anything by the left.

It’s amusing actually.  I’d like to see them all issue individual statements about the sky being blue at noon on a cloudy day — just to see who cites it as proof you should carry your umbrella.

Facts are facts, and information is information.  Doing nothing more than attacking the source isn’t a solution, it’s a copout.  Ideas stand on their own.