Fallacy Name:
Circumstantial ad hominem
Alternative Names:
None
Fallacy Category:
Fallacies of Relevance > Ad Hominem Arguments
Â
It is can be common to try to dismiss an argument by attacking an entire class of people who presumably accept that argument. Because this attempted rebuttal addresses the circumstances of those who hold the position rather than the quality of the argument itself, it is called the circumstantial ad hominem.
This is a fallacy because the identity or nature of a group of people who accept the conclusion of an argument has no bearing on whether that conclusion is true or not. It has no bearing on whether the argument is valid or sound.
The Circumstantial ad hominem fallacy takes the following form:
Like all of the other ad hominem fallacies, the circumstantial ad hominem is a very weak way to make a case. As a consequence, it is reasonable to conclude that someone who offers it probably doesn't have a very strong position to begin with.
Â
Here are some examples of this sort of this fallacy in action:
In both of these examples, some position or idea (evolution, drilling more oil) is criticized based upon the sorts of people who believe it (atheists, people who make money from oil). The ideas themselves aren't addressed or rebutted directly. There's no attempt to address how or why there might be very good reasons for any of those positions, regardless of who else believes them.
Sometimes, ad hominem fallacies like the above can look like abusive ad hominem fallacies. After all, the above statements do look like insults. However, the focus of those attacks is not the character of someone but instead upon their circumstances - things like their job or their religion.
Â
Quite often, this fallacy is made with innuendo:
The implication here is that the politicians, by presumably withholding information, are also being dishonest. Instead of specifying particular circumstances which are supposed to reflect negatively on the argument, vague circumstances are hinted at. At no point is any substantive argument being offered - all we have is a statement about the people involved.
We can also create a circumstantial ad hominem argument which isn't designed to be so insulting:
In this case, we don't have a personal attack. There's no attempt to say that the person is evil, immoral, dishonest, untrustworthy, or anything like that. Instead, their qualifications to judge Chinese cinema are being questioned solely on the basis of their nationality.
What the person in question actually says and knows about Chinese cinema is never considered. No attempt is made to directly and substantively engage the ideas or conclusions they have offered. Maybe they happen to be an expert in Chinese cinema!
The fact of the matter is, their nationality is not relevant to the conclusion being offered. Focusing on their personal circumstances rather than their ideas makes this a circumstantial ad hominem, even though no direct insult is being made.
Â
Not every reference to the circumstances surrounding an argument and those who use or accept it is necessarily a fallacy. It's only a fallacy when it's offered as a reason to reject the argument in question. Sometimes, though, a reference to the circumstances can provide useful information:
If this were offered as a reason to reject the argument in question, it would qualify as a circumstantial ad hominem. It would be a fallacy because, even if the above were true, it wouldn't be a reason to think the argument is invalid or unsound. However, it may still be useful information to better understand how, where, and why the argument is used. It might, for example, help in formulating a proper rebuttal.
Circumstantial ad hominem
Alternative Names:
None
Fallacy Category:
Fallacies of Relevance > Ad Hominem Arguments
Â
Explanation of the Circumstantial ad hominem
It is can be common to try to dismiss an argument by attacking an entire class of people who presumably accept that argument. Because this attempted rebuttal addresses the circumstances of those who hold the position rather than the quality of the argument itself, it is called the circumstantial ad hominem.
This is a fallacy because the identity or nature of a group of people who accept the conclusion of an argument has no bearing on whether that conclusion is true or not. It has no bearing on whether the argument is valid or sound.
The Circumstantial ad hominem fallacy takes the following form:
1. Of course X argues/thinks that way - just look at the circumstances surrounding X.
Like all of the other ad hominem fallacies, the circumstantial ad hominem is a very weak way to make a case. As a consequence, it is reasonable to conclude that someone who offers it probably doesn't have a very strong position to begin with.
Â
Examples and Discussion of the Circumstantial ad hominem
Here are some examples of this sort of this fallacy in action:
2. Evolutionary biology is something promoted by materialistic, atheistic, Secular Humanists in our schools in order to undermine Christianity.
3. The President is in favor of drilling for more oil - but since he has made lots of money from oil and has many friends in the oil industry, his reasons for more drilling must be personal rather than objective.
In both of these examples, some position or idea (evolution, drilling more oil) is criticized based upon the sorts of people who believe it (atheists, people who make money from oil). The ideas themselves aren't addressed or rebutted directly. There's no attempt to address how or why there might be very good reasons for any of those positions, regardless of who else believes them.
Sometimes, ad hominem fallacies like the above can look like abusive ad hominem fallacies. After all, the above statements do look like insults. However, the focus of those attacks is not the character of someone but instead upon their circumstances - things like their job or their religion.
Â
Circumstantial Innuendo
Quite often, this fallacy is made with innuendo:
4. Why don't the politicians release what they know about this, if the information really is innocuous?
The implication here is that the politicians, by presumably withholding information, are also being dishonest. Instead of specifying particular circumstances which are supposed to reflect negatively on the argument, vague circumstances are hinted at. At no point is any substantive argument being offered - all we have is a statement about the people involved.
We can also create a circumstantial ad hominem argument which isn't designed to be so insulting:
5. You're a German, so there is no reason to think that your opinion about what qualifies as good Chinese cinema has any merit.
In this case, we don't have a personal attack. There's no attempt to say that the person is evil, immoral, dishonest, untrustworthy, or anything like that. Instead, their qualifications to judge Chinese cinema are being questioned solely on the basis of their nationality.
What the person in question actually says and knows about Chinese cinema is never considered. No attempt is made to directly and substantively engage the ideas or conclusions they have offered. Maybe they happen to be an expert in Chinese cinema!
The fact of the matter is, their nationality is not relevant to the conclusion being offered. Focusing on their personal circumstances rather than their ideas makes this a circumstantial ad hominem, even though no direct insult is being made.
Â
Circumstantial References
Not every reference to the circumstances surrounding an argument and those who use or accept it is necessarily a fallacy. It's only a fallacy when it's offered as a reason to reject the argument in question. Sometimes, though, a reference to the circumstances can provide useful information:
6. White Supremacists commonly present this argument as a way to introduce people to racist ideology because it doesn't sound particularly racist and is easier to accept without also thinking that you're a racist.
If this were offered as a reason to reject the argument in question, it would qualify as a circumstantial ad hominem. It would be a fallacy because, even if the above were true, it wouldn't be a reason to think the argument is invalid or unsound. However, it may still be useful information to better understand how, where, and why the argument is used. It might, for example, help in formulating a proper rebuttal.