In Support Of Ad Hominem Attacks
Those of you who follow this blog might have noticed a hiatus. I have been on the road, and haven’t been able to tend to blogging. I’m sorry to say that I have a number of trips planned, so posting might be a little sparser than usual for a little while. So, my apologies for the reduction in posting frequency. And if you have something you’d like me to attend to, please let me know.
Ok, back to work.
Today I thought I would discuss ad hominem attacks, which, for some reason, have been on my mind lately.
Literally, of course, “ad hominem” means “land of intelligent horses,” (too obscure?) and refers to when you’re arguing with me and I realize that you’re right and I’m wrong, so I call you names and hope no one notices.
Ok, (a little more) seriously, you’re not supposed to indulge in ad hominem attacks because all we scientists care about is Truth, rather than whose idea was right, in exactly the same way that economists care only about economic growth, rather than whether or not the big bucks are in their own pockets or someone else’s.
Here, in my genuinely humble opinion, is the problem. Scientific discussions often don’t have, shall we say, a Sperberian quality. By this I mean that in natural language, communication is, by and large, a cooperative enterprise. If we’re trying to figure out where to go for a gourmet dinner, here is one way the conversation might go.
ME: Let’s go to Spago.
YOU: I think getting a reservation would be difficult. Brown Derby?
ME: Done.
In contrast, here is the way that natural language conversations don’t go:
ME: Let’s go to Spago.
YOU: Why on earth would you want to go to Taco Bell? That’s a terrible idea. Calling Taco Bell “gourmet” is like calling Carrot Top’s Chairman of the Board “a masterpiece.”
ME: I am going to dinner with someone else.
In natural language, there would be Absolutely No Point in your making a speech act that assigns to me something I didn’t say. It would just be useless and a waste of time and, as I’ve indicated here, I’d go to dinner with someone else.
That brings us back to science. We’re all supposed to talk more or less like we’re having a natural language conversation, in which we obey the usual strictures of Relevance. (But seriously, those Amazon reviews of Chairman of the Board are awesome.)
However, this isn’t always the way things work. I have in mind cases in which scholar A takes some position – let’s call it p – and then scholar B pulls a Taco Bell and explains that scholar A thinks q – despite the fact that A has said p, carefully and repeatedly over and over – which they then show to be palpably and obviously false. Then all of Scholar B’s minions write things like “pwnd!” in the comments section of the blog, and applaud Scholar B for insight and acumen. Take that, scholar A!
Here is my point. What is scholar A to do? In science, we eschew the ad hominem attack, so when scholar A says, “Scholar B has lied about my position,” Scholar B comes back, mouth agape, just floored that scholar A would sink to the level of impugning Scholar B’s character rather than his ideas, calling him a liar. Scholar B recruits the moral outrage of the masses.
I take some comfort in the fact that this dilemma isn’t unique to science. Recently Anderson Cooper called Mubarak and his government liars on television, and some in the media had a little go at him for having the temerity to call individuals who had intentionally deceived other individuals “liars.”
Now, of course, unlike politicians, scholars aren’t really supposed to lie, but they do, and when that happens, it gives rise to a bit of a dilemma. Scholar A can call B a liar, and – correctly – be accused of making an ad hominem attack. You might think that an ad hominem attack is just what the doctor ordered, since A is arguing with what B has done rather than arguing about some fact about what’s true, and it’s a useful thing to point out, since people listening to the debate now think that A believes q rather than p, which ought to be corrected.
Does it make sense to call an intentional misrepresentation of facts a lie and suffer the consequences of being labeled as someone who resorts to personal attacks?
Of course, it would be nice if scholar B’s just restricted themselves to saying things that are true. But then, it would also be nice if there were really unicorns, and they pooped rainbows.
And we’re back.
Comments (6)