Portal field news

Portal field news

in

🏛 | Mr. Naoto Kan "What is the intention of the restoration protest against Hitler's post?"


写真 

Mr. Naoto Kan "What is the intention of the restoration protest against Hitler's post?" Representative Izumi Ritsuken "I do not think about the involvement of the party."

 
If you write the contents roughly
He emphasized that the tweet could be a personality attack on Mr. Hashimoto.
 

Former Prime Minister Naoto Kan of the Constitutional Democratic Party said about the Nippon Ishin no Kai and its founder Toru Hashimoto, "In the turmoil of Germany after World War I ... → Continue reading

 J-CAST News


Wikipedia related words

If there is no explanation, there is no corresponding item on Wikipedia.

Personal attack

Personal attack(Latin: ad hominem, argumentum ad hominem)ArgumentTo attack the individuality and beliefs of the person who made the claim, rather than specifically refuting the claim itself, and such reasoning[1]..It has the effect of replacing the issue.Personal attack reasoningAlso known as[1]..Judge with logic and rationalityCritical thinkingIs a logical mistake inErrorOne of[1].

Interpersonal argument What is called (ad hominem abusive) is for the purpose of discrediting the proposerPersonal attackRefers to the case of doing.AlsoSituation interpersonal argument What is called (ad hominem circumstantial) is an attack on the situation of the proposer,You tooWhat is called (ad hominem tu quoque) attacks the proponent of the argument for behaving or behaving as criticized in the argument.

Personal attacks are logically because the truth of the premise of the argument is independent of the person who states it.DeductionIt is not valid.However, personal attackssyllogismIt is rarely stated that the evaluation isInformal logicArea andevidenceShould be done in the theory of[2]..The credibility of evidence is found in eyewitness testimony and expert testimony.witnessIt relies heavily on the evaluation of reliability.For example, counterarguments that witnesses are unreliable because they have the motive to lie or that experts do not really have a deep knowledge of the field can play a major role in court.

Personal attack isArgument from authorityIs the opposite of.In an argument that appeals to authority, the authority, knowledge, and status of the argumenter are the basis of the truth of the argument.Personal attacks, on the contrary, attack the lack of authority / knowledge / status claimed by the arguers, or note that the demonstrators have made similar mistakes in the past.But that isInfallibilityIt does not become a counterargument.

Personal attack as a formal fallacy

Personal attackErrorIf, it has the following basic form.

A person claims X
There is some suspicion / problem / question about A
Therefore, the claim of X is false

For example, there are the following examples.

Nazi Germany TheEugenicsWas using
Nazis are a bad group
Therefore, eugenics is a bad idea

Personal attack isLogic,Critical thinkingA common fallacy in (The Nazi and eugenics examples may seem correct, but "George Washington Theslave"Washington is a great person" "ThusSlaveryIt is logically the same as the claim that "the degree is correct").This fallacy and accusations based on it are common in real-life conversations.Due to the nature of the human brain to recognize patternsRhetoricIt is a powerful technique.On the contrary, an argument based on the positive side of the person making the claimArgument from authorityCall.

In discussions, the first premise is called "factual assertion" and is often the axis of discussion.The issue is called an "inference claim" and is expressed in some inference process.There are explicit and implicit inference claims.This form of error inference is because even if all assumptions are considered true, it cannot guarantee that the conclusion is true.Reasonableis not.This is not specifically statedpremiseThe same is true for arguments based on.

For example, it has the following format.

A person claims X
There is some suspicion / problem / question about A
(A's claim is always wrong)
Therefore, the claim of X is false

An additional assumption, "A's claim is always wrong," which is not explicitly stated here.If this sentence is true, then this argument is valid.However, the assumptions that cannot be specifically stated in personal attacks are often false and merely reinforce the fallacy.For example

George Washington TheslaveOwned
Washington is a great person
Therefore,SlaveryIs correct

The unstated premise that "everything the Great Washington has done is correct" in the example is clearly false.

Logical example

The fallacy of personal attack is the argument itselfSoundnessBy questioning the credibility and authority of the person who made the argument, rather than refuting against it, the argument itself is wrong, or it is wrong for that person to make such an argument. It is an argument.This raises doubts about the other party's claims and the individual's ability to demonstrate.Simply insulting the other person in a rational conversation does not necessarily constitute a personal attack (although not complimented).The purpose of the personal attack is to discourage the other party in the discussion and encourage a third party to discount the claim.In general, personal attacks and simplePersonal attack,SlanderIs not always distinguished.However, in logic and rhetoric, the word "personal attack" has the same meaning as mentioned above.[3].

An example:

You claim that this man is not guilty, but you can't trust that claim because you're a criminal yourself.

Such sentences are generally convincing in the light of the common sense that criminals often lie and protect each other by lying.However, if this is a personal attack that undermines the credibility of an individual's testimony, it is not valid.

In general, personal attacks can deny one claim, but not the other way around.

An example:

Paula says the referee made the right decision, but that shouldn't be the case.Because Paula was watching the match in one hand doing another important thing. (So ​​the referee's decision is wrong.)

If the assumptions are correct, Paula's testimony loses value, but it is irrelevant whether the referee made the right decision.

Sort

Interpersonal argument

Interpersonal arguments generally debatecontemptAt the same time, on the surface, it takes the form of pointing out the shortcomings of the other party's individuality and the divergence between the claim and the other party's behavior.This tactic is logically false, as the insults and the shortcomings of the opponent's personality are irrelevant (if true) to the logical strengths of the claim.This tactic is政治家Appeals to voters' sentiment to win elections against their dominant rivalspropagandaIt is often used as a means of.

An example:

  • "If you hear Jack say there's no god because he can't get a job, you can't believe him either."
  • "this isAkiaki AsaharaIt must be unbearable to hear because it is a song made by
  • "Her pledge is a comedy. She was caught for tax evasion in 2003."
  • "Hitler TheNon smokingTheorist.And Hitler is a fascist and responsible for the mass murder.In other words, smoking cessationistsfascismAnd a supporter of mass murder. "False concept of medium (fallacy of the undistributed middle) is also used)

Situation interpersonal argument

Situational interpersonal argument points out that a person who makes a claim is in a situation where he or she is forced to make such a claim.It's basically an attack that instills prejudice about the person.This is an error in deductive logic because even if you point out the position of the other party and make the claim seem logically unreliable, it has nothing to do with the logic of the claim itself.this is,Genetic fallacyIt also overlaps with (argument that the claim is incorrect because of the source).

On the other hand, if a person in a position tries to convince a claim based on authority or personal observation, depending on the nature of the person's position, the ability as evidence of the basis may be reduced to zero.[4].

An example:

  • "I can't believe the salesmen say their products are good, because they're eating it."
  • "He's an alcoholic. Of course, he's in favor of the banquet."

You too

You tooThen, he points out that a person is doing something that is inconsistent with that claim, and justifies his own words and actions.In particular, when Mr. A blames Mr. B for his words and actions, when he responds with "you are the reasoning", it means that B returns "A is doing the same thing".In other words, of Adouble standardHowever, it has nothing to do with the truth of the proposition at that time.WhataboutismIs a kind of.

As an example,1930 eraJapan isManchurian IncidentIn response to the American criticism of "JapanManchuriaWhat the United States is doing inTexas,パナマIt's the same thing I did in. "

The fallacy of the collective punishment

In some cases, the fallacy of collective punishment is also a type of fallacy of personal attack.This is the case when an individual is applied to some attribute because of the similarity of tone.

This form of argument is as follows.

A claims P
B also claims P
Therefore, A is a member of B

Example:

"I can't stand the difference between rich and poor, but communists say so, so you're a communist."

There is also the following format.

A claims P
B claims P and Q
Therefore, A claims Q

Example:

"I can't stand the difference between rich and poor, but Communists say so, and they believe in the revolution, so you probably believe in the revolution."

As a variation of this, there is a rhetorical technique that encourages the other party's reversion.

"You said you can't stand the difference between rich and poor. Are you serious? You're saying the same thing as a communist. You're not a communist?"

There is also a technique that combines the fallacy of the collective punishment with the interpersonal argument.

"I say I can't stand the difference between rich and poor, but communists say so, so you're a communist. Communists are hated and they're always lying. So you It's always a lie to say. "

Sort

Personal attack isGenetic fallacy,Fallacy of smoked herringIt is a type of, and is often emotional.

Source

[How to use footnotes]
  1. ^ a b c Eiichiro Shioya 2015.
  2. ^ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1996). “Example: Ad Hominem”(English). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2007/9/10Browse.
  3. ^ Swift (2007). “Syvia Browne on the Ropes”(English). Swift --Weekly Newsletter of the James Randi Educational Foundation. 2007/9/10Browse.
  4. ^ fallacyfiles.org (2007). “Argumentum ad Hominem”(English). Fallacyfiles.org. 2007/9/10Browse.

References

  • Copi, Irving M. and Cohen, Carl (1990). Introduction to Logic (8th ed.). New York: Macmillan USA. Pp. 97-100. ISBN 9780023250354 
  • Hurley, Patrick (2000). A Concise Introduction to Logic, Seventh EditionWadsworth, a division of Thompson Learning. Pp. 125-128, 182. ISBN 0534520065 
  • Eiichiro Shioya "Linguistics and Critical Thinking-Focusing on Fallacy (PDF) "Teikyo University Comprehensive Education Center, Vol. 3, Teikyo University Comprehensive Education Center, March 2011, 3, pp. 20-79," ISSN 1884-703X.

Related item

外部 リンク


 

Back to Top
Fermer