Critical Engagement: Reflections on the ad hominem fallacy and on critical thinking education

Michaelis Michael

Abstract:A number of critics have recently challenged the traditional view that ad hominem arguments are always fallacious. They argue that we often find ourselves in circumstances of limited time, expertise, and informational resources, and in such it is rational to invoke a proposer's personal characteristics in deciding what to make of their argument. I argue that, as a formal challenge to the traditional view, this misses the point. Arguments against the person are necessarily fallacious not in the context of one deciding what to believe in limited circumstances, but in the context of a debate whose terms are set by the intentions of the participants. Nevertheless, the critics still have a point from a practical point of view. Since there are many contexts in which advancing an ad hominem argument may be legitimate, excessive focus on those where it is not can be misleading and confusing. This is a problem for critical thinking education and calls for a clarification of its aims.

Education,Psychology,Philosophy