Hey what’s up Thinkers! Kathy Gibbens here…
I wanted to share a quick message I received from a listener named Holly. She said, “I just heard you on Shanda Fulbright's podcast. I'm so excited for the content you are working on. Thank you so much. I truly appreciate all that you are doing.” Thanks so much, Holly! I had a great time with Shanda on the Her Faith Inspires podcast…check that out if you haven’t! She has an excellent podcast and covers some really good topics that we are all facing today. But thank you for that message, Holly, it encourages me so much to hear from my listeners and to hear that the podcast is adding value to you!
If you're planning on homeschooling your teen, you won't want to miss the Purpose Pursuit | Teen Homeschool Edition! I am excited to be speaking at this FREE 3-day virtual conference, coming up on April 25-27. You’ll get to hear from more than 15 expert speakers, giving you and your teen the info and skills needed to prepare for high school, college, career pathways, life skills, and more! You’ll come away with some of the latest resources to equip your teen for the future! Register now! Again, this is a free event…now, if you choose to purchase the ALL ACCESS PASS use the code THINK10 to get $10 of !and join us April 25-27 at www.wellspentsolutions.com/homeschool
Ok, let’s dive into today’s new fallacy: The Circumstantial Ad Hominem Fallacy. Now, this may sound familiar because I talked about the Ad Hominem Fallacy back in episode 7. So, let’s do a quick review & comparison. “Ad hominem” is a Latin phrase that means “to the man”. An Ad Hominem attack is attacking the person’s character or their personal traits or their motives for believing something to try to undermine their argument, rather than actually disproving their argument.
So, what is a Circumstantial Ad Hominem Fallacy? The Circumstantial Ad Hominem happens when someone attacks an argument by saying that the person making the claim is biased and therefore is only making the claim to serve themself. This fallacy is also sometimes called an “appeal to motive”, an “appeal to personal interest” or “appeal to bias”. And honestly, the name Appeal to Bias makes more sense to me than Circumstantial Ad Hominem, it just seems like it describes this fallacy better, but in my research, it seems to be called Circumstantial Ad Hominem more often, so we’ll go with that.
Here’s a simple example. Lily argues that the sixth grade is the perfect time for a kid to get their own cell phone. Her mom smiles and says “You only think that because you’re in the sixth grade and you want a cell phone.” Now, could that be true? Could Lily just be making this argument because she wants a phone? Sure, but the argument she’s making is that the 6th grade is the perfect time for kids to get a phone and her Mom didn’t address her actual argument. She could have responded saying that she thinks 6th grade is too young and given her the reasons why she believes this. So that’s a simple example of what this fallacy sounds like.
Here’s another example. Trevor is in the market for a new lawn mower. He goes to his local hardware store and talks to the sales person, who tells him that this particular model is the highest-performing, longest-lasting mower they have. Trevor replies, “Well of course you’re going to tell me that, you just want to sell me an expensive mower so you can make a better commission.” Ok, so is it possible that the salesperson is just telling Trevor it’s a good mower so he can make a sale? Maybe, but that doesn’t mean he’s lying. That particular mower may very well be the best one! Trevor would need to do a little research to see if it is indeed the best rather than just accusing the salesperson of saying so because he has a vested interest in making the sale.
The problem behind the Circumstantial Ad Hominem (or Appeal to Bias, as I prefer to call it) is that it doesn’t address the other person’s claim or argument. It focuses instead on the reason that they are making the claim, often implying that their circumstances or their bias means that they benefit in some way from the claim they’re making. As you know, to make a logical argument against someone’s claim, you have to address the claim itself rather than attacking the circumstances or the other person’s biases. Now…that said, can someone’s circumstances and their biases affect their claim? Yes, absolutely that can happen! And it would be wise for that to be part of the conversation, but I would argue you have to first address the actual claim they’re making.
Here’s another example of the Circumstantial Ad Hominem from politics. Let’s say a Senator from my state, Colorado, is trying to introduce a bill that would reduce taxes on the wealthy and is arguing that it will help the economy. Opponents to the bill say, “The only reason the Colorado Senator wants to pass this bill is because he’s part of the most wealthy 1% and this bill will just help him and his rich friends.” Now, is it possible, or even true that this bill could help him and his friends? Sure! But does that mean it’s not a good idea and does that mean it wouldn’t be good for the economy? Not necessarily…that’s a whole nother conversation that needs to be had. Do you see the fallacy? They didn’t actually address his claim that the tax cuts would help the economy…they’re just dismissing it saying that he’s only passing the bill because he has a vested interest and it would serve himself in some way.
Question to ask yourself if you think you’re facing the Circumstantial Ad Hominem (or Appeal to Bias) Fallacy is this: “Are they even responding to the real issue?” *repeat*
Remember: When you learn HOW to think, you will no longer fall prey to those who are trying to tell you what THEY want you to think and it all starts with asking one simple question: “Is that really true?”
