Ad Hominem, or Hitler Said the Sky Was Blue

Ad Hominem

Insult the Intelligent

You find yourself at this page either because you are a rationalist in the making, or you were found guilty of the Logical Fallacy known as Ad Hominem. In short, instead of supporting your argument with solid points, you attacked the person you wee arguing in an attempt to discredit his argument entirely. This is used primarily as a defensive mechanism when the brain fails to find a proper argument for a sudden confusion in a preconceived paradigm... That is to say, you couldn't think of the reasons you believe what you do, and your brain chose to attack rather than retreat and consider the circumstances. This is a consequence of the Fight or Flight mechanism, which can be trained much like any muscle or skill in life. With proper adherence to the Rationalist arts, and self accountability of your own mistakes, the Ad Hominem Fallacy and other Positive Biases will seem second nature to notice.

Wikipedia and many other sites have excellent resources if you find yourself failing to support your own assertions.

You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.

Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.

Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"^[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.^[2]

Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.^{[3][not in citation given]}

Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy,^[4][5][6] more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.

Please support our sponsors, a few clicks can go a long way

Right is Wrong: The Confirmation Bias

Right is Wrong, and other silly brain errors.

For untold millenium the Human Race has been making the same stupid mistakes over and over again. Other people can even see these mistakes, and will inform the person that they are making one... But to no avail. No matter the argument, they seem almost deadset on proving it wrong so long as it opposes his current belief.


This is called the Positive Bias, and it is positively the greatest threat to rational thought. It is characterized by the want to be exposed to information and opinions that confirm what they already believe. And to have a desire to ignore, or not be exposed to, information or opinions that challenge what they already believe.
according to Ye Ol' Wiki


To elaborate on how we managed to experiment for thousands of years and never notice this strange cognitive bias, let me share with you a story about Blondlot and his now infamous N-Rays... In fact, let me share it from another rationalist site. http://skepdic.com/blondlot.html

"The story of  Blondlot is a story of self-deception among scientists. Because many people have the misguided notion that science should be infallible and a fount of absolutely certain truths, they look at the Blondlot episode  as a vindication of their excessive skepticism towards science. They relish accounts such as the one regarding Blondlot and the phantom N-rays because it is a story of a famous scientist making a great error. However, if one properly understands science and scientists, the Blondlot episode indicates little more than the fallibility of scientists and the self-correcting nature of science.

Blondlot claimed that N-rays exhibit impossible properties and yet are emitted by all substances except green wood and certain treated metals. In 1903, Blondlot claimed he had generated N-rays using a hot wire inside an iron tube. The rays were detected by a calcium sulfide thread that glowed slightly in the dark when the rays were refracted through a 60-degree angle prism of aluminum. According to Blondlot, a narrow stream of N-rays was refracted through the prism and produced a spectrum on a field. The N-rays were reported to be invisible, except when viewed as they hit the treated thread. Blondlot moved the thread across the gap where the N-rays were thought to come through and when the thread was illuminated it was said to be due to N-rays.

Nature magazine was skeptical of Blondlot's claims because laboratories in England and Germany had not been able to replicate the Frenchman's results. Nature sent American physicist Robert W. Wood of Johns Hopkins University to investigate Blondlot's discovery. Wood suspected that N-rays were a delusion. To demonstrate such, he removed the prism from the N-ray detection device, unbeknownst to Blondlot or his assistant. Without the prism, the machine couldn't work. Yet, when Blondlot's assistant conducted the next experiment he found N-rays. Wood then tried to surreptitiously replace the prism but the assistant saw him and thought he was removing the prism. The next time he tried the experiment, the assistant swore he could not see any N-rays. But he should have, since the equipment was in full working order."

Blonglot's major error was in telling his lab assistant what he intended with the experiments. They were both unknowingly adding to the Positive Bias, and thus every experiment they performed miraculously proved him right. And if a thousand experiments all say that you are correct... You will probably keep thinking that.

It wasn't until Blonglot's famous failure however that the Positive Bias was finally taken serious by scientists across the world, and a new standard of the Scientific Method was cemented. That which can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof. And nothing is ever true, you can only ever prove what isn't true.

For more mind-opening articles on how you are ALWAYS WRONG, or somethng more positive, check out the rest of our rationalist writings. And please support the impoverished writers and their sponsors, and affiliates. And buy my merchandise, i haven't eaten in three days.

Strawman Fallacy... How to burn nothing.

How to Make and Destroy an Opinion
By Janus Kane


So you found yourself in an argument, likely in public, and for whatever reason your words become WILDLY SKEWED by your opponent and you cant figure out why...
You, my friend, need  hot cup of rationality.

Human brains work on pattern matching, its what we do best. The issue with this and rationality lies in a difference of opinion, and the inability to express that difference logically. So... You build a Strawman,



"Strawman Fallacy"

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.^[1]
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.^[2][3]
This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.
Allegedly, straw-man tactics were once known in some parts of the United Kingdom as an Aunt Sally, after a pub game of the same name where patrons threw sticks or battens at a post to knock off a skittle balanced on top.

-


The problem of course isn't that the strawman is largely ineffective... in fact, its one of many Logical Fallacies that exist BECAUSE they are so effective. Logical Fallacies work by short circuiting, or bypassing certain pathways in the brain that would otherwise allow you to connect the patterns.

But worry not! Their existence is also their bane, as calling them out for jumping to conclusions in such a clearly biased manner makes your opponent look both petty, and uninformed.
Be informed.

Please consider supporting this starving artist's affiliates and sponsors, you may like what they have to offer,
If you just want to read more about how your brain doesn't work, skip over to the next Logical Fallacy :)