ad hominem argument

(argument against the person) the informal fallacy of supposing
that a proposition should be denied because of some
disqualifying features of the person who affirms it. This fallacy is
the mirror image of the appeal to authority. In its abusive form,
ad hominem is a direct (and often inflammatory) attack on the
appearance, character, or personality of the individual. Example:
"Jeremy claims that Susan was at the party, but since Jeremy is
the kind of person who has to ride to work on the city bus, it
must be false that she was there." A circumstantial ad hominem
accuses the person of having an alternative motive for defending
the proposition or points out its inconsistency with the person's
other views. Tu quoque (the "so do you" fallacy) uses a similar
method in response to criticism of a position already held.
Recommended Reading: Douglas Walton, Ad Hominem
Arguments (Alabama, 1998).

[A Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names] (http://lgxserve.ciseca.uniba.it/lei/foldop/foldoc.cgi?A+Dictionary+of+Philosophical+Terms+and +Names)

Source:
FOLDOP (http://lgxserve.ciseca.uniba.it/lei/foldop/foldoc.cgi?ad+hominem+argument)

Great choice :)

Earlier I was pondering the mind-body problem (http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=552822&secid=.-&hh=1).
I was reading Schopenhauer - I think that might
have had something to do with it. ;)

johnny said billy smells like dookie. but johnny smells like dookie, does that mean billy must not smell like dookie? Or does billy smell worse than dookie?

If they both smell like dookie then they
both need a shower. As I see it, that is
a hygiene issue not a philosophical one.

In my opinion, fallacy (http://www.xrefer.com/entry/442063) is another term
that is worth pondering. :D

the appeal to authority is also termed ad hominem, isn't it?

e.g. Lyell says that the earth's crust is static. Lyell is a geologist. Therefore the earth's crust is static.

Originally posted by paulsamuel
the appeal to authority is also termed ad
hominem, isn't it?
They are both fallacies of revelance (http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06a.htm).

so, are all informal fallacies fallacies of relevance?

never thought I'd say fallacies twice consecutively in the same sentence and be grammatically correct.

I am still learning about fallacies (and philosophy in
general) so I am no expert. I also want to add, I prefer
to use references that I have here at home. I do not
currently have a philosophy dictionary so until I get one
I am using a couple that I found online. Please don't take
that the wrong way - I'm not saying online references are
bad, I am just super picky about references. :D

That said and to answer your question - not all informal
fallacies are fallacies of relevance. This definition explains
it far better then I ever could:

informal fallacy
an attempt to persuade that obviously fails to demonstrate the
truth of its conclusion, deriving its only plausibility from a misuse
of ordinary language. The informal fallacies include: (1) fallacies
of relevance: appeal to ignorance, appeal to authority, ad
hominem argument, and appeal to emotion, appeal to force,
irrelevant conclusion, and appeal to pity; (2) fallacies of
presumption: accident, converse accident, false cause, begging
the question, and complex question; (3) fallacies of ambiguity:
equivocation, amphiboly, accent, composition, and division.

Source:
FOLDOP (http://www.swif.uniba.it/lei/foldop/foldoc.cgi?informal+fallacy)


If you are interested - here is another link with lots of info
on fallacies: Logic and Philosophy of Logic (http://www.epistemelinks.com/Main/Topics.aspx?TopiCode=Logi)