Michael Recknor
Oakland, Calif.
Raley makes two category errors in her article. Attributing poor lawn care to a neighbor’s political persuasion is not an ad hominem argument. Rather it is an example of what social psychologists call “attribution theory,” in which the same behavior is interpreted differently depending on who is doing it. For example, if I overeat, I am likely to attribute the behavior to tasty food (self-attribution), whereas if I see my overweight neighbor doing the same, I think he has no willpower (other attribution). Moreover, the attributions mentioned by Raley are not personal but sociological in nature and hence not the personal attacks meant by ad hominem—literally “against the person.”
The second category error concerns the example of the doctor. Not following our fat doctor’s advice to lose weight is what a previous generation of social psychologists working within a persuasive communication paradigm called “the source effect.” When given information, we tend to accept or reject the information based on whom we think it is coming from. For example, if we learn that Osama bin Laden says giving charity is an important God-commanded activity, we are much less likely to agree (and give charity) than if we hear the exact same phrase from our local clergy.
Source effects concern the reliability of the provider of the information, not the information itself. They are different from ad hominem attacks in that they concern the impact on the listener, not his rhetorical and illegitimate personal counterattack on the speaker.
Henry Abramovitch
Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University
RALEY REPLIES: Abramovitch suggests there are two category mistakes in my essay. The term “category mistake” comes from Gilbert Ryle’s 1949 book The Concept of Mind (University of Chicago Press). Ryle’s famous example is of a person asking, after having been shown the buildings and offices of a university, “But where is the university?” His mistake is to think that the university is the same kind of entity as the buildings and offices of the university.
Abramovitch thinks that my example of the neighbor’s lawn care belongs to the category of attribution theory—a theory concerned with the motivations we attribute to others and how these differ from the motivations we attribute to ourselves. Therefore, he argues, the example is not an ad hominem. Although Abramovitch is right to point to attribution theory as an explanation for the example, this does not preclude its being an ad hominem. Abramovitch offers an explanation for why the speaker said what he did. In contrast, I offer an analysis of the logic of what the speaker said. Abramovitch’s analysis is descriptive (it describes what motivates the speaker), whereas mine is normative (it deals with the reasoning errors in the argument). There are explanations for a particular act of speech (the buildings and offices in Ryle’s example), but there are also the logical analyses thereof (universities). Neither precludes the other.
Apart from this, Abramovitch construes “ad hominem” too narrowly. Although the Latin ad hominem is translated as “against the person,” the concept of ad hominem is broader than that, as is generally the case with Latin terminology when employed in the sciences. One would be confused if one tried to understand the contemporary usage of Tyrannosaurus rex by reading the Latin literally (“tyrant lizard”). No more does every ad hominem have to involve a direct accusation—it just has to unfairly discredit the individual.
Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "Letters".
See what we're tweeting about
3 Comments
Add CommentScientific creativity is a very different intellectual ability than artistic creativity. One cannot steer a person into one from the other. It is very sad I think that society does not consider artistry be it music or the visual arts as important as science as it makes us civilised. Artists and scientists often have eccentricities due to their high strung and quickly moving ADD sort of minds. It is the downside to brilliance at times. Better to be doing something unique and having a messy life than to sit in a chair doing bloody accounts for a brokerage firm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnfiertel,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisArtistry is as important to society as science, if not more. Ask ten people how many books they've read and what most of those books were. Then ask them what they most like to listen to. Then ask them what they most like to look at. Then ask them what they like to eat. Then ask them what they like to drive and why. Then ask them where they'd like to be right now if they could be anywhere in the world. When you're done gathering your answers you are likely to see what truly drives the human spirit and it is not science. Science is a product of the human spirit as is Art. Creativity is inspired in cooking, painting, architecture, music, engineering, philosophy, writing, and everything else we humans do. Suppose you're writing music while your neighbor writes a theory on the origins of chemical elements. Whose creation would the majority of people in your neighborhood rather listen to? Where does the balance really fall? Most people don't want to hear about science. Most would rather hear something more "entertaining" or "artsy". The same goes for TV shows, magazines, newspapers, radio, the Internet and every other media known to man, which ironically mostly exist due to the creativity of a science "geek" in support of the more accepted art forms. The actors are the stars, not the special effects guys.
I became interested in the subject of creativity back in 1957 as an architectural student at Penn State. So what else would you do then, I went to the university's mammoth library and looked up the subject only to find one book. There certainly has been a lot written on the subject since then.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince then I've participated in several "creative" fields and endeavors, and even taught creative problem solving to engineers. Interestingly when sharing my teaching experience and paradigm with instructors in other "creative" fields at the university, none had as clear a description of the process than the engineers had. Which confirmed my earlier experience in architectural instruction: the design (i.e., creative) process was/is not explicitly explained and exercised in artistic disciplines.
Upon reflection now, and without the advantage of reading the SciAm article or reviewing all the contributions to this blog, let me suggest that there seems to be different types of "creativity" with maybe different mechanics involved. One difference seems to be the difference between "problem solving" creativity of engineers, architects and maybe scientists, and, "inner expressive" creativity of the artist. That is not to say that artists don't also pursue problem solving of artistic expression and technique on occasion. However It is a different mind set.
Maybe there needs to be more differentiation within the realm of creativity. I'm thinking that there might be an "applied creativity" practiced by engineers and scientists which applies creativity to practical problems of intrinsic value to society.
Now I'll go back and read the background material referenced here; please overlook my ignorance -- which by the way seems to be a characteristic of the creative person, their willingness to risk it. Note that I did spell check this so that I wouldn't appear too stupid.