Article contains too much incorrect information 

I'm going to rewrite large portions of this article some time soon because the authors who wrote them don't understand what ad hominem means.  If there are any objections to this, please voice them here.  There is a very common misconception going around, that ad hominem is simply an attack against the person you're arguing with, but that is not necessarily the case.  Likewise, an 'attack' doesn't have to be name-calling or anything like that.  It could simply be something like "you are wrong because you don't have a PhD in the subject."

There is a very important distinction that some, but not all parts of the article make between to types of attacks.
Ad hominem attack:  "Your argument is wrong because of [something about the person they are arguing with]."
"That piece of evidence may be true, but how could you possibly be right, you don't have any kind of degree or certification in this area."
"There's no way he could be right about this area of quantum physics, the guy dances around naked in his house!"

Non-ad hominem attack: "You're such a(n) [disparaging remark].  You are wrong because of [insert reasoning unrelated to the person]."
"These statistics from this highly credible polling agency clearly show that you're wrong about the prevelance of it.  Why am I even arguing with this idiot?  I should really learn to stop arguing with someone who couldn't even get a GED."
"That's it, you're too stupid to argue with, bye."
"Here's a comprehensive study showing why you're wrong.  In the future I suggest that you take some courses in this before arguing about it."

See the distinction?  If there's any confusion, I can clarify further.

Please note that there is an exception of sorts, if the person you're arguing with IS the subject of the argument, then you can attack the characteristics of the person which are relevent to the argument.  Although I'm not sure if that's really an exception or just not considered ad hominem to begin with.  It depends if you define ad hominem as "attacking the person as a basis for your argument" OR "attacking the persno as a basis for your argument in place of attacking their argument."  The latter definition has the exception built-in, since you'd be attacking the person in addition to (not in place of) their argument.

 6 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)