regarding argument

[fall]

hello guys. Help me out. When in an argument and a person use this to discredit another..."oh, he's not mature. Don't believe him." as their reasoning.

What is another word for that?

[da_raven]

It's called argumentum ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)

[Ierrellus]

It could mean that the person described as immature has simply not acquired enough background knowledge of a subject to be able to respond to it meaningfully. A good "you're not there yet" criticism beats all of the "you're fulla shit" ad hominems.

[kennethamy]

hello guys. Help me out. When in an argument and a person use this to discredit another..."oh, he's not mature. Don't believe him." as their reasoning.

What is another word for that?

It really depends on whether the person is saying that the other's testimony is false, or whether he is saying only that the other's testimony is not credible.

It might, after all, be true, that the other is immature, and that his advice on some matter should not be taken seriously. Suppose that is true. Then that might be called an ad hominem, but it would be perfectly proper. Proper ad hominems are often used in law courts when the opposing lawyer tries to "impeach" (as it is called) the witness. For example, the lawyer may get the witness to contradict himself, and then argue to the jury that the testimony of the witness should not be believed because the witness is not trustworthy. Even if the witness did tell the truth, that is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, since the ad hominem attacks the credibility of the witness, and not what the witness said. On the other hand, if the lawyer argues that what the witness testified to was false because the witness is untrustworthy, that's an improper use of the ad hominem, and is a fallacious argument. So the difference, to go back to your example is between the following two arguments:

Argument A.

1. M. is immature

therefore,

2. M's advice is not reliable

and,

Argument B.

1. M. is immature

therefore,

2. M's advice is mistaken.

Argument A. is a perfectly proper argument, since the conclusion does follow from the premise. If the premise is true, then the conclusion is true. (Of course, there is the question is whether the premise is true)

Argument B. is an improper argument, since the conclusion does not follow from the premise even if the premise is true.

It is always important to distinguish between whether the premise of an argument is true or false, and whether the conclusion of the argument follows from the premise.

Ierrulus (I think) was trying to show the premise need not be true. And that's right. The premise need not be true. But, then again, it might be true. The question would then be, supposing it is true, what follows from it?

[jaboteer]

Argument A.

1. M. is immature
therefore,
2. M's advice is not reliable

and,

Argument B.

1. M. is immature
therefore,
2. M's advice is mistaken.

Argument A. is a perfectly proper argument, since the conclusion does follow from the premise. If the premise is true, then the conclusion is true. (Of course, there is the question is whether the premise is true)

Argument B. is an improper argument, since the conclusion does not follow from the premise even if the premise is true.

It is always important to distinguish between whether the premise of an argument is true or false, and whether the conclusion of the argument follows from the premise.

repetition for effect.

[untermensche]

hello guys. Help me out. When in an argument and a person use this to discredit another..."oh, he's not mature. Don't believe him." as their reasoning.

What is another word for that?
In law it means below the age of legal competency.

You can't put a three year old on the stand.

[Hoodoo Ulove]

repetition for effect.What's your point here? Arguments a and b are two different things. Another way of expressing the fallaciousness of argument b is "even a stopped clock is right twice a day".

[kennethamy]

repetition for effect.

M's advice is unreliable does not mean the same as M's advice is mistaken.

M's advice can be unreliable, so that you shouldn't take it. But he might be right, anyway.

If you need further help with this distinction, let me know.

[kennethamy]

In law it means below the age of legal competency.

You can't put a three year old on the stand.

The question is not, what does "immature" mean. He knows that.

[untermensche]

The question is not, what does "immature" mean. He knows that.
My point eludes you. This is the exact reasoning which forbids people under a certain age from giving evidence.

They are immature, and therefore we cannot believe them.

[kennethamy]

My point eludes you. This is the exact reasoning which forbids people under a certain age from giving evidence.

They are immature, and therefore we cannot believe them.

That's right. And from the premise, A is immature, if follows that what they say (at least about some things) is not credible. And that's an ad hominem, but a valid one.

On the other hand, from the premise, A is immature, it does not follow that what A said was mistaken or wrong. And that's an ad hominem, but an invalid one.

Therefore, you simply did not understand the point that there are two kinds of ad hominems, valid and invalid, and that I was demonstrating both. You also did not understand that the OP was not asking about the meaning of the term "immature", which is how you replied.

[untermensche]

That's right. And from the premise, A is immature, if follows that what they say (at least about some things) is not credible. And that's an ad hominem, but a valid one.

On the other hand, from the premise, A is immature, it does not follow that what A said was mistaken or wrong. And that's an ad hominem, but an invalid one.

Therefore, you simply did not understand the point that there are two kinds of ad hominems, valid and invalid, and that I was demonstrating both. You also did not understand that the OP was not asking about the meaning of the term "immature", which is how you replied.
Your tangents are strange.

You do not address the point you quote, but go on to things of your own interest that have no logical connection.

Your distinction between ad hominems is noted.

[kennethamy]

Your tangents are strange.

You do not address the point you quote, but go on to things of your own interest that have no logical connection.

Your distinction between ad hominems is noted.

No tangents. The OP asked what to call the argument he cited. I said it is called an ad hominem, and then pointed out that there were two kinds of ad hominems. What is tangential about that?

[untermensche]

No tangents. The OP asked what to call the argument he cited. I said it is called an ad hominem, and then pointed out that there were two kinds of ad hominems. What is tangential about that?
I do not agree it is ad hominem when we do not allow children to give testimony as evidence.

It is a truthful understanding of their abilities.

[kennethamy]

I do not agree it is ad hominem when we do not allow children to give testimony as evidence.

It is a truthful understanding of their abilities.

And I don't think you have any idea of what "ad hominem" means. Why don't you look it up?

[untermensche]

And I don't think you have any idea of what "ad hominem" means. Why don't you look it up?
Pointing out that a person cannot fly with their arms is not ad hominem.

Pointing out that young children are very poor witnesses is not ad hominem.

[kennethamy]

Pointing out that a person cannot fly with their arms is not ad hominem.

Pointing out that young children are very poor witnesses is not ad hominem.

Of course not. An ad hominem is a kind of argument. I told you to look it up.

Arguing that since children are poor witnesses, the testimony of Joey, a child, is not credible, is an ad hominem, and it is a valid ad hominem. But arguing that since children are poor witnesses, the testimony of Joey, a child, is false, is an ad hominem, and it is an invalid ad hominem.

Try to understand.

[untermensche]

Of course not. An ad hominem is a kind of argument. I told you to look it up.
I know what it is.

And saying children make poor witnesses is not ad hominem.

[kennethamy]

I know what it is.

And saying children make poor witnesses is not ad hominem.

Yes, That is what I said. Saying that children make poor witnesses is not ad hominem.
However, arguing that since children make poor witnesses, whatever they testify to is false, is an ad hominem, and an invalid ad hominem.

I think this is the third time I pointed out that statements are not ad hominems, and only arguments are ad hominems. Here, I'll point it out again, just for you. Statements are not ad hominems, but arguments are ad hominems. Now, thats the fourth time. Will that be enough?

[untermensche]

However, arguing that since children make poor witnesses, whatever they testify to is false, is an ad hominem, and an invalid ad hominem.

That is a position of your own invention, and not something I have said or even alluded to.

Since you agree children make poor witnesses, why don't you tell me why this is the case.

[kennethamy]

That is a position of your own invention, and not something I have said or even alluded to.

Since you agree children make poor witnesses, why don't you tell me why this is the case.

What are you talking about? It is not an invention. It is just an example of an ad hominem argument. Whether children make good witnesses or not is irrelevant. And what has whether children make poor witnesses have to do with whether an argument which has that as a premise is an ad hominem or not? Some children, I suppose are good witnesses. Some are not. And I don't know about the rest. What has that to do with it? It was an example. An example.

[untermensche]

What are you talking about? It is not an invention. It is just an example of an ad hominem argument. Whether children make good witnesses or not is irrelevant. And what has whether children make poor witnesses have to do with whether an argument which has that as a premise is an ad hominem or not? Some children, I suppose are good witnesses. Some are not. And I don't know about the rest. What has that to do with it? It was an example. An example.
This has nothing to do with my question.

Why do children make poor witnesses?

[kennethamy]

This has nothing to do with my question.

Why do children make poor witnesses?

They generally don't earn much money?

[untermensche]

They generally don't earn much money?
True, but how does income effect your ability to act as a witness in a trial seeking evidence?

[kennethamy]

True, but how does income effect your ability to act as a witness in a trial seeking evidence?

Holy density, Batman!

[untermensche]

Holy density, Batman!
Holy drifts off to left field at will Batman!!

[fall]

Guys, thank you for the response. Sorry it took so long to respond. It has nothing to do with kids or actual immaturity.

Logical fallacy are the words I'm looking for. Argumentum ad hominem is correct.

Don't you guys ever get into this kind of argument, when suddenly, a person tries to discredit you by saying, " oh, ur not mature enough." You know, the concept of I'm older than you or I'm female. Female are more mature than male, therefore, you're not as mature as me. I'm older than you, so I know more than you...

[kennethamy]

Guys, thank you for the response. Sorry it took so long to respond. It has nothing to do with kids or actual immaturity.

Logical fallacy are the words I'm looking for. Argumentum ad hominem is correct.

Don't you guys ever get into this kind of argument, when suddenly, a person tries to discredit you by saying, " oh, ur not mature enough." You know, the concept of I'm older than you or I'm female. Female are more mature than male, therefore, you're not as mature as me. I'm older than you, so I know more than you...

Sure. Goes on all the time. The reply is, "that has nothing to do with what we were talking about. Let's get back to the point."

[Chris Porter]

Guys, thank you for the response. Sorry it took so long to respond. It has nothing to do with kids or actual immaturity.

Logical fallacy are the words I'm looking for. Argumentum ad hominem is correct.

Don't you guys ever get into this kind of argument, when suddenly, a person tries to discredit you by saying, " oh, ur not mature enough." You know, the concept of I'm older than you or I'm female. Female are more mature than male, therefore, you're not as mature as me. I'm older than you, so I know more than you...

Er, I was once patted on the head and told not to worry my pretty little head over something. A bit like that? Very, very irritating, I would agree.