Letter is a classic example of ad hominem fallacy

In his latest letter, Jack DeBaun provided us with a classic example of an ad hominem fallacy.

Instead of dealing with the issues directly, DeBaun chose to attack the character and reliability of a man named Roger Roots. Roots claims that the glaciers in Glacier National Park are actually growing instead of shrinking as climate alarmists believe. If Roots’ claims are false, it should be easy enough to prove, but DeBaun would rather attack the man than deal with the issues.

Ad hominem means “against the man.” It is a fallacy because it does not answer the argument being presented. Instead, it only questions the veracity of the person presenting the argument. DeBaun said of Mr. Roots that “he is an ex-con, Nazi sympathizer, and creator of a fake university.” Roots was in prison for a probation violation, has publicly renounced the anti-Semitism of his youth (so he is not a “Nazi sympathizer”), and operates a legal teaching business. Politically, he is a libertarian. But does any of this really matter when addressing the truth of his statements about glaciers?

DeBaun does not address Mr. Roots’ arguments at all. But what if Roots is right? What if his statements about the glaciers are true? That is where Mr. DeBaun needs to focus his attention. Instead of attacking the messenger, he should deal with the message. The real question is about whether the glaciers are growing or receding, not about the character and reliability of Roger Roots.

MONTE HEIL

Sagle