This lesson examines fallacies that attempt to undermine arguments by attacking the person making them rather than addressing the argument itself. Students learn to distinguish between legitimate considerations of credibility and illegitimate personal attacks, and to recognize various sophisticated forms of ad hominem reasoning.
Rejecting or dismissing someone's argument by attacking their character, personal traits, or identity rather than addressing the substance of their argument.
Dismissing someone's argument by pointing to their circumstances, situation, affiliations, or potential motives rather than addressing the argument's merits.
Dismissing someone's argument by pointing out that they themselves don't follow their own advice or that they've acted inconsistently with their stated position.
Dismissing or refusing to engage with someone's argument because of the emotional tone, style of delivery, or perceived anger/rudeness in which it's presented, rather than addressing the substance of their claims.
Dismissing criticism by claiming the critic lacks the credentials, specialized knowledge, or insider status to make valid criticisms, without actually addressing the substance of their arguments.
Attempting to persuade someone to accept a claim or take an action by appealing to their vanity, pride, or desire for recognition rather than providing logical reasons or evidence. The argument works by making the target feel special, intelligent, sophisticated, or superior for agreeing with the position.
Attributing human characteristics, intentions, motivations, or reasoning processes to non-human entities (animals, nature, organizations, systems, or abstract concepts) in a way that leads to faulty conclusions. This occurs when arguments assume that because humans have certain properties or behave in certain ways, non-human entities must operate similarly.