This ongoing discussion of what constitutes an ad hominem argument is all very
well,
but I'd like to point out that I didn't make an ad hominem argument or
assertion.
I simply asked a question.
On another note, Fred, perhaps I'm in the minority here for not having yet read
the novels
you refer to, or watched any film adaptations. But if the best argument you can
think
of is based on fiction (which is to say, argumentum ad exemplum, quoting a
sermon to
support a moral point) and giving away the plot, do at least have the courtesy
to prefix
it with a warning saying SPOILER ALERT.
Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: ietf [ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker (fred)
[fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
Sent: 24 February 2014 22:43
To: Andrew Sullivan
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: Ad hominems (was: Policy of WG chairs in organising time for
presentations and face2face discussions)
On Feb 24, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Andrew Sullivan
<ajs(_at_)anvilwalrusden(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 02:37:13PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Could we have an RFC to explain what is and what is not a valid ad-hominem
argument?
There are no valid _ad hominem_ arguments. _Ad hominem_ is a short
name of a fallacious form or reasoning where one attacks the person
making the argument _instead of_ attacking the argument as such.
(More fully, of course, it's known as _argumentum ad hominem_.)
Ad Hominem is a perfectly valid argument against claims of fact when made
against the authority making the claim. "PT Barnum is a notorious liar' is
a perfectly valid argument against a claim PT Barnum is making about having
found a mermaid.
I think this is only sort of true.
I think the context is relevant here. In a court of law, discrediting a witness
is, as you note, a counter-argument to the train of argument being made by the
side s/he is a witness for. In the book/movie "the girl who kicked the hornet's
nest", Lisbet is brought up on charges that are not only untrue but are in fact
an ad hominem on charges she is bringing. She demonstrates the factuality of
her statements from records, and demonstrates that her opponents cannot do the
same, and in fact have criminal reasons to have her viewpoint suppressed. Yes,
she demonstrates that one is a pornographer and another is a murderer, and 12
people are taken into custody as a result of her testimony and pre-trial
activities. While it is an attack on a person, it is demonstrating criminal
intent and behavior.
In an IETF meeting, we are not discussing criminal matters; we are discussing
ideas. Even if the party proposing an idea were a criminal, his or her criminal
nature would be irrelevant to the idea - it might or might not be a good one.
So from my perspective, I would agree with your opening statement. Ad Hominum
arguments have no place in our process.