Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Doctor Hammer's avatar

This is the longest definition of "ad hominem" I have ever read.

Seriously though, this is a good point to be making, how we short circuit actually engaging with a writer's arguments by just saying "well, they only say that because...". That might be a slightly useful heuristic if we are incapable of engaging with the argument and putting it in the ground, perhaps because we are unfortunately discussing something unfalsifiable, but generally it is a mental trap.

As you say, knowing someone's background can help contextualize their arguments, for instance casting light on their perspective, or highlighting hypocrisy, but generally I think we should be agnostic of the author's "reasons" for writing something and focus on the truth of their arguments. For example, people always fuss that Grotius wrote "The Free Sea" because he was commissioned to write a defense of the Netherlands' capturing of a Spanish ship (if I am recalling the countries correctly) but that is besides the point; sure, it was motivated reasoning, but the reasoning is dead sound in any case. No one points out gaps or leaps of assumption that would normally mark motivated reasoning, but instead just say "Well, he was hired to make an argument" as though that makes the argument invalid.

Expand full comment
Peter Limberg's avatar

Perhaps a distinction: psychologizing and the "psychologizing fallacy." I think psychologizing can be helpful in some cases, as it brings a sense of healthy distrust, disabusing one from fanboying over an impressive thinker. However, it's essential to avoid the psychologizing fallacy, where one dismisses someone's views due to presumed unexamined motivations behind those views. Besides, psychologically uncalibrated individuals often focus on aspects of reality that others often overlook.

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts