Fallicies: The Ad Hominem Fallacy

Different forms of reasoning exist. All reasoning may not be a result of sound judgment or reasonable logic (Woodard, G. & Denton R., 2014, p. 93). Others may be based on premises that are just false, unethical or lack basic common sense (Woodard et al., 3014, p. 92). Theorist identified these forms of poor reasoning as “fallacies” (Woodard et al., 2014, p. 93). This type of logic is commonly associated with aggressive communication such as disagreements between individuals or may just come from a dishonest individual (Woodard et al., 2014, p. 93). It is not always easy to be of the same mind. Furthermore, individuals communicating with different points of view or passion may be highly susceptible to employ bad logic (Woodard et al, 2014, p. 93). Therefore, theorist determined for individuals to advance “sound reasoning” it was important to develop the capacity to recognize and discern false logic using a systematic effort to identify (Woodard et al., 2014, p. 93). The consequence of faulty reasoning impedes an individual’s ability to effectively collaborate, make sense of new information, process and evaluation the everyday real world situations (Weinstock, M. P., Neuman, Y., & Glassner, A., 2006, p. 338). This can impact relationships. Based on this study, social scientist argued that individual “cognitive ability” and the ability to identify factors that influence poor logic can improve effective reasoning and encourage sound arguments (Weinstock et al., 2006, p. 338). Social scientist identified prevalent forms of faulty logic as ad hominem, false cause, non-sequitur, circular argument, fallacy of over-simplification and excessive dependence on authority (Woodard et al., 2014 pp. 94-98).

The ad hominem is a common ...

... middle of paper ...

...s a fallacy of reasoning that simply restates the position with an identical start and ending (Woodard et al., 2014, p. 96). By doing so, it creates a stronger perception and reinforcement of the validity in the argument (Woodard et al., 2014, p. 96). For instance, this might be seen in political debates, advertising, child rearing etc. (Woodard et al., 2014, pp. 96 & 97). The circular arguments in the political arena are narrow in scope and focused on assertions that are not capable of being challenged (Woodard et al., 2014, p. 96). Other circular arguments may simply discredit the true by repeating a particular phrase or expression using fallacies of reasoning and logic (Woodard et al, 2014, p. 96). For example, the expressions “because it is the right thing to do” and “because I said so” are overused circular argument phrases (Woodard et al., 2014, p. 96).