Recognize personal attacks (ad hominem) and the forced “either-or” choice (false dilemma).
Ad hominem: at the person, not the point
Personal attack
Ad hominem (Latin for “to the person”) is a trick in which, instead of examining an argument, people attack the one who made it. The logic breaks down here: whether a statement is true doesn't depend on who said it or what kind of person they are.
Examples:
— “Don't listen to his arguments about the environment — he drives an SUV himself!” (The speaker's personal hypocrisy doesn't make his argument false.)
— “What could you possibly know about raising kids? You don't have any of your own.” (An argument isn't tested against a biography.)
— “A politician from Party X said that, so it's nonsense.” (Belonging to a group is not a refutation.)
An important subtlety: bringing up the person is not ALWAYS a fallacy. If someone is an interested party or a known liar, that's a fair reason to check their facts more carefully. The fallacy begins when the person is targeted INSTEAD OF the argument: “he's bad — so he's wrong”. The person can be a reason to check, but not proof.
The defense: “Say I'm anybody you like. But what's wrong with the argument itself?”
Lesson notes
Personal attack
Ad hominem (Latin for “to the person”) is a trick in which, instead of examining an argument, people attack the one who made it. The logic breaks down here: whether a statement is true doesn't depend on who said it or what kind of person they are.
Examples:
— “Don't listen to his arguments about the environment — he drives an SUV himself!” (The speaker's personal hypocrisy doesn't make his argument false.)
— “What could you possibly know about raising kids? You don't have any of your own.” (An argument isn't tested against a biography.)
— “A politician from Party X said that, so it's nonsense.” (Belonging to a group is not a refutation.)
An important subtlety: bringing up the person is not ALWAYS a fallacy. If someone is an interested party or a known liar, that's a fair reason to check their facts more carefully. The fallacy begins when the person is targeted INSTEAD OF the argument: “he's bad — so he's wrong”. The person can be a reason to check, but not proof.
The defense: “Say I'm anybody you like. But what's wrong with the argument itself?”
Only two options? Hardly
A false dilemma (false dichotomy, “black-and-white thinking”) is when we're offered only two options, as if there were no third, although in reality there are more.
Examples:
— “Either you're with us or you're against us.” (What happened to neutrality, partial agreement, “I agree on one thing but not on another”?)
— “If you don't like it here, leave.” (As if you couldn't stay and still want things to improve.)
— “Either we build the plant and get jobs, or the town dies.” (What about other ways to develop?)
A false dilemma plays on emotions and leaves no room for nuance. It's common in politics and advertising because it backs a person into a corner: either of the two “exits” benefits whoever set up the dilemma.
The defense is to ask: “Are these really the only two options? What else is there?” Often naming a third option is enough to make the whole construction fall apart.