The opposite of ad hominem

[Myword]

There is no word for the opposite of the ad hominem argument,. Is there?

Instead of arguing against the person, what if the speaker praises the person's work because of their occupation or reputation?
You are not evaluating the work itself, merely assuming that if Smith is the creator, and Smith has an important job or a genius then it must be good.
Einstein is a example. He is  quoted like everything he said is right regardless of the subject. Physics, all right. So many times critics praise a famous genius or high respected popular person but some  of their works don't deserve it.

The Halo Effect is similar. Or argument from authority.

[dismalist]

Google, antonym for Argumentum ad Hominem argument, indeed says "Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Argument from Authority)".

Keynes, anyone [for misuse of both]? :-)

[Parasaurolophus]

Much as it pains me to say it, dismalist is right--it's the appeal to authority. Depending on how you cash it out, it might count as an appeal to emotion, or some other species of association fallacy.

[FishProf]

Appeal to authority IS an ad hominem argument.  It is replacing a critique of the claims with a critique of the claimant; in this case a positive critique.

[AvidReader]

Or ab homine?

AR.

[Ruralguy]

I was thinking same as FishProf. its just a different type of ad hominem argument (centered on the person or persons involved instead of the core of the argument).

[Myword]

I always understood that ad hominem is literally against the person. Against in the textbooks.

My question is broader.  Not the ones mentioned. Similar to Halo Effect, bias toward person or group favorably, assuming their past great reputation. True in classrooms also. Suppose someone or group's product is hailed, praised, recommended because who they are (identity) NOT
because of the product, book, or the specific comment itself. (Writing, music, wisdom, business.   in their field of expertise and/or outside it?
Every Warren Buffet comment is treated with great respect because he is a financial genius supposedly. It doesn't follow that every businesss or other comment is pure gold. Famous poets. Doesn't matter what Auden said  (No offense to English profs.)

[Ruralguy]

I guess you are right, since "ad" can mean "against" and that probably is correct by context for how mostly people use the term.

[Parasaurolophus]

I guess you are right, since "ad" can mean "against" and that probably is correct by context for how mostly people use the term.

The problem with fallacies is that there are literally infinitely many of them, because you could name an informal fallacy for any bad argument (similarly, every single invalid inference is a formal fallacy).

So, what ends up happening is that lots of the named fallacies are extremely closely related. This is especially so for informal fallacies because their fallaciousness is not tied to their formal structure (which means, in turn, that for each one there exist structurally identical arguments which aren't fallacious).

That's the problem we're running up against here. The fallacy named 'ad hominem' involves an irrelevant personal attack, but it isn't the only one. Tu quoque is another, for example. These are all grouped together as fallacies of relevance, but there's no point trying to be too precise with informal fallacies because in doing so you quickly outrun their utility (which, frankly, is primarily rhetorical).

[FishProf]

Para is technically correct (the best kind of correct).

Ad Hominem means "to the man"  as in, the critique is directed at the person, rater than to the claim.  That is why some philosophers consider it a class of fallacies, as there are sub-types (tu quoque - "you too" - for example).

There is no universally agreed upon classification scheme.  If you tried to make one, you'd probably be committing an appeal to authority fallacy ("Well, PLATO says...").

[Ruralguy]

Right. I'll accept that, since its been how I've been using the terms anyway.

[RatGuy]

Once had a similar discussion with a friend who teaches composition. Situation: student used a pop-icon (like Ariana Grande or Taylor Swift) quote as an essay hook. Broadly, the paper was about fear (student was referencing why they were afraid of something that most people aren't scared of). I said, "what does this popstar know about fear? Wouldn't a quote by Stephen King or Mike Flannagan be more appropriate?" And my friend argued that I was making a certain kind of ad hominem fallacy -- assuming that Ariana Grande can't speak to "fear" because she's an expert in something else. She further said "that's like saying Kevin Costner can't be an authority on environmental issues because he's an actor." I get the point, but I kinda disagree. Maybe this speaks to Para's point about the nature of informal fallacies?

[Myword]

That is not an adhominem, you are right in a way. You did not say that Taylor Swift should be rejected, only that she is not appropriate for speaking about fear. Your friend's assumption is not warranted. As teacher, you have the right to ask for a better example.
However, Taylor may have stage fright, I don't know. Never saw her. Many performers have chronic fears and insecurities. Me? I'd rather have a swift tailor than a taylor swift (Haha)   Stephen King knows fear but in real life? We don't know if he is fearful.

Fear, Ithink, is a major motivator of all human behavior.

[Parasaurolophus]

I get the point, but I kinda disagree. Maybe this speaks to Para's point about the nature of informal fallacies?

The especially confusing thing about informal fallacies, for a lot of students, is that because they're informal (i.e. not tied to the argument's structure), perfectly valid (valid = if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true) or even sound arguments (sound = valid + true premises [i.e. true premises + true conclusion]) can be fallacious, and not all instances of a given 'fallacy' are fallacious.

In your particular case, RatGuy, I'd say that the more appropriate charge against you was that you were making either an inappropriate appeal to authority, or committing the genetic fallacy. Both of these can be understood as species of ad hominem, however, and all three are fallacies of relevance. But again, that said, some appeals to authority/genesis/personal criticisms are perfectly relevant to the argument at hand, and thus aren't fallacious. It all depends on how we further precisify the claims actually being made, and how they relate to one another.

So, yeah, in the end it doesn't make sense to place too much weight on them.

[kaysixteen]

Two questions:

1)  I get that there are several verrrryyy similar fallacies that get subsumed under variations of the name 'ad hominem'-- this fallacy, like many others, is also something which gets named various other things in different texts and other sources.   Is there an Oxford English Dictionary-style authoritative list of fallacies and the names thereof somewhere?

2) Am I the only one that wonders whether the ad hominem is always exactly fallacious?  IOW, attacking the man rather than the idea is fallacious only when the idea itself cannot be legitimately attacked, so the critic defaults to ad hominem personal attacks, but pointing out various negative things about someone is necessary on occasion-- take the process of voir dire in jury selection: if I am the defense attorney defending a black guy accused of raping a little white girl, I will directly challenge prospective juror X if it is determined he's a KKK member.   I need know nothing else to know he should not be seated on this jury.   And when I am reading information about religion x, I do need to know what if any relationship the author has had to said religion.  Certainly,  if he is an excommunicated member thereof....   I need not be able to prove that his claims are false, before I say I will not credit them without independent verification.