argumenta ad hominem

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

English[edit]

Noun[edit]

argumenta ad hominem pl

  1. plural form of argumentum ad hominem
    • 1959: Henry W. Johnstone, Philosophy and Argument, p73
      The only hope of meeting this objection is to show not only that valid argumenta ad hominem are possible as well as invalid ones, but also that a valid argumentum ad hominem can properly be used to attack a philosophical view as well as to discredit the testimony of those who advocate the view.
    • 1973: Hans J. Eysenck, The Inequality of Man (ISBN: 0–8511–7050–1), chapter 1 — Equality and Individuality, p26
      The evidence is lacking to decide between alternative explanations and in any case these are argumenta ad hominem which should not be used in scientific discussion; the facts are the only things that matter, and on those grounds there is no doubt that the hereditarians were largely in the wrong in what they asserted.
    • 2003: Lynn Janet Thiesmeyer, Discourse and Silencing: Representation and the Language of Displacement, pp193–194{1} & p194{2}
      {1}The respective statements are packaged differently, as direct accusations or insinuations, as topoi of threats (argumenta ad baculum or argumenta ad hominem) and occur in many contexts, especially in semi-public ones, i.e. in interviews or in TV discussions just as in the memorial vigil (see below).
      {2}Greed, dishonesty and vindictiveness constitute the content prejudices appearing in this context, not least in the linguistic form of fallacious argumenta ad hominem.
    • 2004: Josef Seifert, The Philosophical Diseases of Medicine and Their Cure: Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine, Vol. 1: Foundations, p312
      In reality, such argumenta ad hominem are designed to show that, therefore, the nature of the thing in question is so evident that its evident traits are also recognized by the opponent, at least when some clear instances of the disputed datum are brought up; and that therefore the recognition of the true nature of the thing in question by the opponent himself leads to an inconsistency with the false elements in his position.