Video Transcript: Introduction and Ad Hominem

Henry - Hi, I'm Henry Reyenga. And with me is Dr. Roy Clouser. And we're going to be doing this logic light class are actually logical fallacies, find them  understanding them. Many of you have actually participate in logical fallacies or  you listen to logical fallacies. Where's logical fallacies study come from anyway.  Who's Who started this  

Dr. Clouser - ancient Greek philosophers, there codified rules for telling whether  arguments were valid, or they weren't valid argument is one, which, if the  premises are true, the conclusion must be okay. So that's where it started so  that, but then they also catalogued the mistakes people made about reasoning.  And they call them fallacies. And they taught them to students who wanted to  become lawyers. Okay, so they can trick juries. Oh, they didn't teach him whom  to avoid them. They taught him so that they can pull the wool over people's  eyes. So they had a terrible reputation. These people became known as  sophists, and they took tutor money to train you to be a lawyer in court. And one  of the things that they would teach you is the fallacy so that you can use them to deceive juries of judges.  

Henry - To your entire philosophy class I was hearing this about a jury was big.  Back in the Greek day.  

Dr. Clouser - In ancient Athens, a jury consisted of 413 people, so that nobody  could afford to bribe the majority. It was an odd number, so we couldn't have a  tie vote, and a big number. So you couldn't bribe there's a wonderful story about  one of the sophists, took a student and the student said. I don't have any money. But when I win my first case in court, I'll pay you. And then the student just never took a case to court. So the sophist sued him. And in court, he argued, he said  to the jury, if you find for me, he should have to pay me because you said I won  this case. If you find for him, he's won his first case in court, and he should pay  me. So either way, he should pay me. So the student got up and said, if you find  for me, I should not have to pay because you found for me. And if you find for  him, I still haven't won my first case in court, so I shouldn't have to pay. How  would you like to be on that jury?  

Henry - Now, I did overhear, too, that the 12 number was interesting, like British  common law, what was the deal with that?  

Dr. Clouser - It was for no other reason than Jesus had 12 disciples. So they  decided 12 The number of people they'd have on a jury very easily have been  something different. In fact, the whole notion of having an odd number, so  there's never a tie vote makes some sense. Right. But then, in capital cases, we require any way or a unanimous jury anyhow, right. Right, right. Okay, so 

Henry - we're going to talk about these fallacies. The first one we have here is  the ad hominem fallacy. So what is that 

Dr. Clouser - Ad Hominem means that when somebody gives you reasons to  think conclusion is true, you try to criticize the argument, instead of attacking the reasons you attack the person. So one example I remember, stands out in my  memories, I read about Winston Churchill making a speech when he was  running for office after the II World War. And he got up and said, Here's what we  need to do in the British economy, and somebody from the crowd yelled, didn't  you just have to declare bankruptcy. So that was true. Right. But it's arguing  against him, not his reasons. The reasons he was giving for this budget plan of  his may have been good or not, but but they changed the subject when they  attacked him. Instead of the reasons he was giving. That's a Ad Hominem  argument, arguments to the man instead of to the reasons. 

Henry – well, a lot of times, people will do that in ministry, you'll see that where  somebody will come into counseling, okay, and, you know, the issue that they  have is the issue they have, but they'll start Ad Hominem in a way, you know,  they'll like, it's so and so's fault or, it's not really the issue. So people do that.  And so, if you were to spot an Ad Hominem argument, what are some of the  characteristics of it an Ad Hominem argument?  

Dr. Clouser – Well, it has one main characteristic that you attack the person and  it has nothing to do with the reasons the person is giving for the conclusion? Or  it's just a discussion of an issue. Maybe nobody has yet even put forward a  proposed policy or anything, but you start attacking the person in order to  suggest the person is unqualified to have an opinion on this subject, still Ad  Hominem.  

Henry – I've often, I remember one time I was counseling and there was an  uncle that was not liked. And the uncle was actually pretty sharp. But because  he was not liked, no matter what he said, it was wrong. It didn't matter if he was  speaking like, but that is an Ad Hominem argument right? I mean, distraction  because he has many merited things to say.  

Dr. Clouser - But he's instead of considering them on and off the merits the fact  the person dismiss everything, right.  

Henry - Well, good, so good. We were gonna plow through these. So that's the  end of the first session.