The Glade 4.0

It might help if the "record of prior judgement" were not based on the subjective conclusions of one person who just so happens to have been hired by someone with a bone to pick with Woodward's conclusions. Not to mention, of course, the silliness of saying that a book that reflects a life that involved heavy drug use and an early death in a negative light just "feels wrong". Yes, it does, probably because it doesn't try to glamorize Belushi.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That would be argumentum ad hominem.

If, however, objective failure rates and objective information was presented to discredit your "analysis and projections," that would not be ad hom. It would just be factually discrediting you. Theoretically, this is also an appeal to history, but that's a pretty weak fallacy to use against an argument, in my opinion, unless we believe past behaviors don't predict future behaviors.

That isn't what this author has done against Woodward, instead presenting only subjective material without disputing the underlying facts. Furthermore, because the author is presenting a contrasting book/viewpoint, the author himself is subject to bias.

A bias and a fallacy in making an argument generally make me discredit something entirely.



It depends. This would technically be an appeal to history again, but I'm not sure I'd consider it wrong for the same reason mentioned above.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I think you're applying the ad hominem fallacy label too broadly here. As you've formulated it, it would be impossible to challenge any conclusion that rests on subjective judgment (e.g., inferring meaning from a set of facts) because doing so would necessarily involve questioning the judgment of the person stating that conclusion. I agree that doing so is an ad hominem argument, but I don't believe it constitutes an ad hominem fallacy. My understanding is that an ad hominem argument is only fallacious if the trait or circumstance being questioned is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

For example, consider the following statement by A:

A: "The defendant turned and walked toward me in a very aggressive manner, giving the impression that he was about to attack me."

This statement could be challenged in two ways: (i) by challenging the objective factual claim that the defendant turned and walked toward A; and (ii) by challenging A's subjective judgment that the defendant's demeanor was aggressive and indicated an imminent attack. Let's say there's no dispute about the underlying facts in (i), so the only open question is whether A's judgment in (ii) is accurate.

With that in mind, consider the following possible responses:

B: "You're an atheist, so your impression of his demeanor and intent has limited credibility."

or

B: "You have paranoid schizophrenia, so your impression of his demeanor and intent has limited credibility."

In both cases , B is making an ad hominem argument because he's attacking A's judgment rather than the underlying objective facts. However, while B's first response is a fallacious ad hominem argument because A's atheism is not a relevant factor in evaluating the accuracy of his impressions, B's second response is not a fallacious argument because A's schizophrenia certainly is relevant to evaluating the accuracy of his impressions.

This is all true RD, but A isn't what happened in your hypothetical regarding hockey. Saying somebody has "poor judgement" and "crappy" conclusions speaks to the integrity of the opponent.

Instead, in an objective rhetorical debate, one should cite specific, concrete examples of where the opponent has been incorrect in the past.

Given that the matter at hand in the OP is pretty much wholly subjective (vis a vis Belushi and the characterization thereof), the quoted author really has no basis calling Woodward out for being "wrong." There is no "wrong," given the underlying facts are not in dispute.

Instead, if said author disagrees with Woodward, they should give specific, concrete examples of why they disagree. Then, they should shut up about how they think it relates to the Obama staffer, because the one is wholly incapable of being tied to the other. The author would make a better case by putting out their disputed facts and then letting the reader make their own impression.

But since we write articles at the 6th grade level in this country, I suppose that's unlikely to happen.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine