Taking Ad Hominem Over the Top

The title of this column gives the game away: Olberman Readies a Glenn Beck Muckfest.

An ad hominem argument is not in itself fallacious. It is pretty much the opposite of an argument from authority. In the latter case, an argument from a relevant, germane, qualified authority is perfectly usable. On the other hand, an argument from authority where the nature of the authority is not germane to the subject matter has problems. (Does the term "expert witness" ring a bell?)

Just so, an ad hominem argument attacks an assertion by attacking its source. This is invalid if the nature of the alleged fault in the source is irrelevant or unproven. It is not true, for example, that everything Rush Limbaugh says is false just because it is said by Rush Limbaugh. No, everything Rush Limbaugh says is false because Rush Limbaugh chooses to say false things.

So, Keith Olberman's "muckfest" misses the point. It doesn't matter if Glenn Beck is a convicted perjurer, a pederast, an embezzler, or a right-wing hack, as long as what Beck says has the color of truth. You might not want to believe what Glenn Beck says because he is such an oily, sleazy, unsavory person, but that doesn't make his statements untrue. (Similarly, you might not want to believe Keith Olberman because he is an agressive loudmouth, but his behavior doesn't make him a liar, either.) Even if Olberman means to focus on the unsavory nature of many of Mr. Beck's statements, one should remember that unpleasant, insulting, and gross are not synonyms for untrue.

Today, on Meet the Press, David Brooks referred to the media circus about health care, and how it didn't bear much reality to what real people were thinking about the issue. Right on, David!