Vigil on 7/8/2006 at 07:51
It is <i>ad hominem</i>, but it's a distinct brand of it - distinct enough to deserve its own nomenclature IMO. "What X says about Y is irrelevant because X lacks the ability to do Y" would be the simplified form I suppose.
Or perhaps I just want it to have a name because it makes me so fist-clenchingly fucking angry when I see people do it.
theBlackman on 7/8/2006 at 08:26
Thanks. It has been bugging the hell out of me. I just couldn't get the little grey cells to congeal enough to dredge it out of the memory banks.
Thanks again.:thumb:
OrbWeaver on 7/8/2006 at 10:04
Quote Posted by Vigil
It is <i>ad hominem</i>, but it's a distinct brand of it - distinct enough to deserve its own nomenclature IMO. "What X says about Y is irrelevant because X lacks the ability to do Y" would be the simplified form I suppose.
Yes, I agree. In fact more generally it is in a subset of ad hominem attacks which might be termed the "ad hominem lack of authority", which asserts that somebody is not "authorised" to hold a particular opinion because they are not in possession of some related experience or skill.
Women are particularly fond of it - their "you just don't understand" is the canonical example.
Quote:
Or perhaps I just want it to have a name because it makes me so fist-clenchingly fucking angry when I see people do it.
Indeed, it is a worthless and lazy argument.
scumble on 7/8/2006 at 12:10
Quote Posted by Vigil
It is <i>ad hominem</i>, but it's a distinct brand of it - distinct enough to deserve its own nomenclature IMO. "What X says about Y is irrelevant because X lacks the ability to do Y" would be the simplified form I suppose.
I can't track down a reference to any specific name for it, but we could come up with one perhaps. This is probably wrong as I don't know latin, but the use of an online latin dictionary enabled me to come up with
ad hominem facultas - in an attempt to say "attack on the man's ability/faculties". Sounds alright, but I'd be surprised if the endings were correct.
OrbWeaver on 7/8/2006 at 12:33
ad hominem non peritum might work - attack on the inexperienced man.
hopper on 7/8/2006 at 12:57
Quote Posted by scumble
This is probably wrong as I don't know latin, but the use of an online latin dictionary enabled me to come up with
ad hominem facultas - in an attempt to say "attack on the man's ability/faculties". Sounds alright, but I'd be surprised if the endings were correct.
At a shot in the dark due to my virtually non-existent Latin knowledge I'd say
ad facultam homini sounds about right.
Vigil on 7/8/2006 at 15:12
The fallacy comes in two separate flavours, it's worth noting. The first is "X is not qualified to judge Y because they do not have the skills needed to create Y"; the second is "X has no right to judge Y, because they have not created/cannot create things like Y".
The first flavour is the logical fallacy of supposing that the particular skills required to critically evaluate Y in a useful way <i>are identical to or a superset of</i> the particular skills required to create Y. In many fields this is indeed the case, especially where the field is obscure. But in general criticism of the Arts, where this fallacy most often comes up, it historically and by general consensus is not the case... however much writers, musicians, artists, movie directors and other creatives of delicate ego would like to hold otherwise.
The second flavour is more emotionally charged and clearly ad hominem. It harkens back both to the old biblical adage that "you should not judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes" and the familiar retort that "a book critic is a failed writer". It suggests that it's cruel or lazy (or both) to make judgements upon creations without having made them oneself; it silently relies on the premise that a fellow artist would never be so critical (which is usually rather hilariously false.) It usually also carries with it the belittling accusation that the only reason such judgements are made is because the critic is jealous of the creator or bitter about their own failings.
Often the argument starts out as a nebulous mixture of the two, and when pressured the person making the fallacy will choose whichever seems most defensible in the circumstances, or alternate between the two.
(As a side note, I'd also like to offer the opinion that the adage "you should not judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes" is specifically a parable about not judging a person's moral choices outside of the context of their situation and necessities. Not at all an assertion that one has no entitlement to judge a person's pottery as lousy or food as overcooked or indie movie as self-indulgent aimless wank, without being a potter or chef or indie movie director themselves.)
Starrfall on 7/8/2006 at 15:43
Ad hominem circumstantial is a variant of ad hom in which the A attempts to discredit B by alluding to certain circumstances that affect B.
So something like: "Of course A supports B in the election, they're brothers! This obviously discredits any valid points A might bring up in support of B!"
Para?noid on 7/8/2006 at 16:28
The particular type the OP is referring to is a weak argument. I don't have to be a good cricketer - or a cricketer at all to know if I see a good strike or a poor one. I don't have to be a musician to tell you that jazz-funk fusion isn't really music, either.
