Philosophers have argued that ad hominem arguments are sometimes valid
Is it true that philosophers have argued that ad hominem arguments are sometimes valid?
Yes. Philosophers and argumentation theorists have increasingly argued that certain types of ad hominem arguments are not inherently fallacious and can sometimes be logically legitimate.
Verdict: SUPPORTED · 3 sources for, 0 against · Last checked
The retrieved papers feature several philosophical works (such as Johnson 2010, Tindale 2008, and Cohen 2015) arguing that ad hominem arguments can be legitimate rather than strictly fallacious under specific conditions (such as virtue epistemology or evidentialism). Therefore, the claim is supported by the literature.
Get citation
Battaly, H. (2010). Attacking Character: Ad Hominem Argument and Virtue Epistemology. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.22329/IL.V30I4.2964
See more details
Get citation
Woods, J. (2008). Lightening up on the Ad Hominem. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v27i1.467
Get citation
Bondy, P. (2015). Virtues, Evidence, and Ad Hominem Arguments. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.22329/IL.V35I4.4330
- Is it true that ad hominem always makes an argument invalid? REFUTED
- Is it true that specific philosophers have argued that God cannot exist? SUPPORTED
- Is it true that philosophers clearly define the word consciousness in their arguments? REFUTED
- Is it true that a valid deductive argument can have a tautology as its conclusion? SUPPORTED
What does the evidence say?
The retrieved papers feature several philosophical works (such as Johnson 2010, Tindale 2008, and Cohen 2015) arguing that ad hominem arguments can be legitimate rather than strictly fallacious under specific conditions (such as virtue epistemology or evidentialism). Therefore, the claim is supported by the literature.
Receipt History
Challenge the receipt
Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work