In article <email@example.com>, "Tez" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> An ad hominem fallacy is of the form: > > Person P made argument A > > Person P is ignorant/poor/gay/female/stupid/handicapped/etc > > Therefore argument A is invalid. > > > It is *not* ad hominem to say: > > Person Q made argument B > > Argument B is incoherent/lacks reasoning/lacks evidence/is purely > assertion/is muddled/makes categorical errors/equivocates/is > nonsense/is irrelevant/etc > > Therefore person Q is ignorant/poorly > read/uninformed/unreasonable/stupid/irrelevant/etc > > > Sure, such a statement may be insulting. But it isn't invalid.
I accept that my use of the phrase, "ad hominem," was inaccurate. I don't know what the correct term is for the fallacy of rebutting someone's argument by calling it "bullshit" and "crank babble."
-- Gerry Myerson (email@example.com) (i -> u for email)