Lying vs. Being Ignorant

[Subduction Zone]

Calling someone a liar isn't an ad hominem. It would only be an ad hominem if it was something like "you're a liar... and that's why what you're saying now is false."

Even something like "you're a liar, so I don't trust that what you're saying is true" doesn't necessarily have any logical issues with it.

Calling someone a liar is a claim. It's certainly a claim that's often emotionally charged; it's kinda a rhetorical sledgehammer that isn't appropriate most of the time, but can be effective when it's used appropriately.


Ironically, this is more of an ad hominem than calming someone a liar.

Actually it would be an ad hominem attack. It would not be an ad hominem fallacy. Your second example was of an ad hominem fallacy. An ad hominem attack may be true. An ad hominem fallacy is poor reasoning in support of an idea that still may be true, but not for the reason given.

 

[Vinayaka]

Attack the argument, not the person.

Absolutely. Unfortunately when a person is overly emotionally attached to their world view and ensuing arguments from that, many counter-arguments are taken as personal attacks. It's like telling a Packer fan you feel they're not very good. Reasoning doesn't get you very far, so you have no choice but to fold 'em. (Go Packers!)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Absolutely. Unfortunately when a person is overly emotionally attached to their world view and ensuing arguments from that, many counter-arguments are taken as personal attacks. It's like telling a Packer fan you feel they're not very good. Reasoning doesn't get you very far, so you have no choice but to fold 'em. (Go Packers!)

What! That is heresy. Tomorrow I am going to be hearing Steve Raible scream "Touchdown SEAHAWKS!!"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Calling someone a liar is an attack on their character in the context @Vinayaka were discussing.

Sure, but that doesn't necessarily make it an ad hominem.

I find nothing productive out of calling someone a liar in a debate. Do you?

Of course I do. It certainly has rhetorical value:

- it can shock the audience, which has its own uses.
- it can put a debate opponent on the defensive (which in a timed debate, say, might mean that he has to use time defending his character instead of attacking you).
- it can reframe the debate: instead of arguing over the debate motion, you can - if successful - take the fact that you're right and the opponent is wrong as a given, and instead refocus on whether the opponent knows that he's wrong.

Attack the argument, not the person.

Depends on the goal and the context. Attack the argument, certainly, but formal debates are just as much about performance as they are about logical arguments.

... and in an informal debate, say, around the dinner table at family Thanksgiving, the relationship may be more important than the debate, and the question of whether the relative arguing against you might be deliberately misstating facts might be more important than whatever it is you're arguing about.

I wasn't drawing a distinction.

Okay. As long as you recognize the ad hom in what you were saying.

 

[Heyo]

Calling someone a liar is an attack on their character in the context @Vinayaka were discussing. I find nothing productive out of calling someone a liar in a debate. Do you?

Attack the argument, not the person.

Yep. Never call someone a liar, call their statement a lie - if you can show it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually it would be an ad hominem attack. It would not be an ad hominem fallacy. Your second example was of an ad hominem fallacy. An ad hominem attack may be true. An ad hominem fallacy is poor reasoning in support of an idea that still may be true, but not for the reason given.

The term "ad hominem" generally refers to the fallacy. "Ad hominem attack" would be using an ad hominem fallacy to attack the other person. That's the way I I understand the term, anyway.

 

[Vinayaka]

What! That is heresy. Tomorrow I am going to be hearing Steve Raible scream "Touchdown SEAHAWKS!!"

Sea who?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

whether saying "You are a Liar" or "That's a Lie" has never seemed to make any difference to me...it's a thermonuclear warhead intended to end discussion, and may cause lots of collateral damage along the way. Maybe that's okay in a formal, timed debate, where literally points are to be earned and a competition to be won or lost, but in real life, it's something that starts fights and sours relationships...usually to no productive end.

I try to say, and encouraged my students to say, "I think you are mistaken, and here's why..."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sea who?

Exactly what the dazed Packers will be saying tomorrow. Oddly enough we have away field advantage

 

[Spirit of Light]

I've seen many accused of lying by others, when, in actually, they are more accurately simply ignorant to the truth.

As I see it, there is a well defined distinction between lying and being ignorant.

For someone to lie, they must know the truth and have a premeditated intent to deceive the subject from that truth. On the other hand, someone who is ignorant to the truth can tell a mistruth, but since they believe their mistruth is, in fact, the truth in their mind, there is no intent to deceive, and therefore, no lie.

Agree? Disagree? Why?

From a human standpoint it would seem that if someone is unaware of telling a lie, but it still would be a lie according to the truth that actually does exist. But you can say it was a lie done unintended.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The term "ad hominem" generally refers to the fallacy. "Ad hominem attack" would be using an ad hominem fallacy to attack the other person. That's the way I I understand the term, anyway.

That is usually because people use it as a shortcut. The following article goes into it a little:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/character-attack/

At times an ad hominem attack is proper.

"Fair Use
What types of ad hominems might then be justified? Walton argues that an ad hominem is valid when the claims made about a person’s character or actions are relevant to the conclusions being drawn. Consider, for example, former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, who was caught on a wiretap arranging to hire a prostitute for $4,300. Because this behavior ran counter to Spitzer’s anticorruption platform, its unveiling would prevent Spitzer from governing successfully; thus, criticizing this aspect of his character was relevant and fair. In an earlier scandal, in 1987, televangelist Jimmy Swaggart was seen at a motel with a prostitute. Because his behavior undercut his preaching and status as a Christian role model, a character attack based on this incident would have been spot-on."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

whether saying "You are a Liar" or "That's a Lie" has never seemed to make any difference to me...it's a thermonuclear warhead intended to end discussion, and may cause lots of collateral damage along the way. Maybe that's okay in a formal, timed debate, where literally points are to be earned and a competition to be won or lost, but in real life, it's something that starts fights and sours relationships...usually to no productive end.

I try to say, and encouraged my students to say, "I think you are mistaken, and here's why..."

FWIW, lying also tends to start fights and sour relationships. When lying is called out, it's often the case that the relationship is done anyway... or that acknowledging the lie is the first step toward restoring the relationship.

 

[Vinayaka]

Exactly what the dazed Packers will be saying tomorrow. Oddly enough we have away field advantage

You've convinced me with your logic and details. It's too bad such convincing logic wasn't used in the many debates put forth on this forum. I am now a dedicated Seahawk fan, and have begun mapping out my route to Seattle for their first game next season when they raise their championship banner. I believe Russell Wilson to be the second coming of Christ, and his offensive line to be not offensive at all. I wish to thank you for opening my eyes to the glorious football fandom world that lies ahead.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is usually because people use it as a shortcut. The following article goes into it a little:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/character-attack/

At times an ad hominem attack is proper.

"Fair Use
What types of ad hominems might then be justified? Walton argues that an ad hominem is valid when the claims made about a person’s character or actions are relevant to the conclusions being drawn. Consider, for example, former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, who was caught on a wiretap arranging to hire a prostitute for $4,300. Because this behavior ran counter to Spitzer’s anticorruption platform, its unveiling would prevent Spitzer from governing successfully; thus, criticizing this aspect of his character was relevant and fair. In an earlier scandal, in 1987, televangelist Jimmy Swaggart was seen at a motel with a prostitute. Because his behavior undercut his preaching and status as a Christian role model, a character attack based on this incident would have been spot-on."

Seems in line with my understanding: an ad hominem is when you use the other person's character as a premise in your argument... which is usually - albeit not always - a logical fallacy. Just calling someone names without trying to draw some relevant inference isn't an ad hominem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You've convinced me with your logic and details. It's too bad such convincing logic wasn't used in the many debates put forth on this forum. I am now a dedicated Seahawk fan, and have begun mapping out my route to Seattle for their first game next season when they raise their championship banner. I believe Russell Wilson to be the second coming of Christ, and his offensive line to be not offensive at all. I wish to thank you for opening my eyes to the glorious football fandom world that lies ahead.

Oh rats. I was hoping to banter a bit. I am looking forward to seeing the Vikings for the final NFC game. If the Seahawks win and the Vikings win the final game will be in Seattle. I will be torn a little bit. I was born and raised in Minnesota so I still have Viking sympathies. It is also how I know that the Packers are the Spawn of Satan

 

[Revoltingest]

In all seriousness, there is another aspect, and that is why do people choose to throw the liar accusation around as freely as they do? How will that contribute to any worthwhile discussion?

92.7% of the time, it's done in anger. It seems that some people
cannot believe that others could really believe differently. I've been
accused of it for dismissing the existence of God. People take the
same attitude regarding evolution, creationism, GW, AGW, voting
for presidents, etc.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@SalixIncendium - I think calling out a lie for what it is is fine as long as:

- I'm sure that the other person is lying.
- I have a purpose for doing it.
- I'm okay with the harm calling out the lie could cause to my relationship with the other person (if we have a relationship).

Also, as I touched on earlier, there are other forms of dishonesty besides outright lying.

 

[Vinayaka]

Oh rats. I was hoping to banter a bit. I am looking forward to seeing the Vikings for the final NFC game. If the Seahawks win and the Vikings win the final game will be in Seattle. I will be torn a little bit. I was born and raised in Minnesota so I still have Viking sympathies. It is also how I know that the Packers are the Spawn of Satan

I liked Bart Starr, and Packers have same colours as Edmonton Eskimos of CFL. I always admired the playing in the extreme cold too. Truth be told, I'm no rabid fan. Doesn't look that good for your Vikings today. In sports I'm more of a hating fan than a loving fan. I hate the Maple Leafs, the Yankees, the Cowboys, and the Lakers, but it's more just how the press goes all gaga over these teams. I just yell at the TV ... shut up already!

 

[Vinayaka]

92.7% of the time, it's done in anger. It seems that some people
cannot believe that others could really believe differently. I've been
accused of it for dismissing the existence of God. People take the
same attitude regarding evolution, creationism, GW, AGW, voting
for presidents, etc.

You're right and I'd take it even one step further to the idea of neutrality being unacceptable or seen as disagreement to some people.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're right and I'd take it even one step further to the idea of neutrality being unacceptable or seen as disagreement to some people.

Aye, neutrality is dissed as lacking courage to take a stand.
How can one take a stand on something one doesn't know?