How ad hominem arguments can demolish appeals to authority

[C C]

https://aeon.co/ideas/how-ad-hominem-arg...-authority

EXCERPT (Sam Dresser): . . . What if children respond to their parents’ plea to refrain from smoking by saying: ‘You use tobacco, so why shouldn’t I?’ This retort is an example of ad hominem argumentation. Arguments against the person are attempts to undermine what someone says, not by engaging with what is said but by casting aspersions on the person who says it. For example, the child’s retort is directed at the parents, in light of their failure to set a positive example, not at their parents’ concerns about smoking.

The popular view in the media is that ad hominem attacks are bad arguments. [...] But isn’t this definition itself an ad hominem attack on those who make ad hominem arguments? Contrary to the popular view, I think that we sometimes have good reasons to argue against the person. In other words, ad hominem arguments can be good arguments, especially when they are construed as rebuttals to appeals to authority.

We often seek the advice of authority figures, such as medical doctors, religious leaders and political leaders. To seek and follow the advice of authorities is a matter of practical reasoning ... If my doctor gives me a diagnosis and prescribes medication, it would be imprudent to ignore her diagnosis and refuse to take the medication. Now, are there circumstances in which it wouldn’t be imprudent to refuse to listen to authorities and follow their advice? Yes: these circumstances occur when an authority is guilty of practical inconsistency, that is, they don’t practise what they preach. Consider the case of Lee Jang-rim, a religious authority in South Korea [...]

When an appeal to authority is made, it’s reasonable to respond by pointing out that the authority appealed to is acting in a manner that is inconsistent with her advice. Such practical inconsistency provides a good reason to think that refusing to follow the authority’s advice wouldn’t be imprudent. It’s important to note that this sort of ad hominem argumentation is legitimate only as a rebuttal to appeals to authority. [...] It’s also important to note that this sort of ad hominem argumentation is defeasible, that is, it can be defeated by other considerations, since there might be other reasons why an authority’s advice should be followed anyway, even if the authority is guilty of practical inconsistency.

For example [...] filmmaker Asia Argento [...] became a prominent figure in the #MeToo movement and an advocate for victims of sexual assault, preaching that we should listen to survivors of sexual assault and believe their stories. Subsequently, The New York Times revealed that: ‘Argento quietly arranged to pay $380,000 to her own accuser: Jimmy Bennett, a young actor and rock musician who said she had sexually assaulted him in a California hotel room years earlier.’

Clearly, Argento’s actions are inconsistent with her message as a leader in the #MeToo movement, which is why it would be legitimate to make the following ad hominem argument against her [...] Of course, there are good reasons to listen to survivors of sexual assault and believe their stories. So we should always think about the advice itself and whether there are good reasons to follow it independently of what an authority says we should do. However, if we are urged to follow the advice of authority figures solely on the grounds that they are authorities, then acting in a manner that is inconsistent with their own advice would undermine their status as authorities, and thereby give us good reasons to think that refusing to follow their advice wouldn’t be imprudent. (MORE - details)

[Syne]

No, one fallacious argument does not justify another, nor is calling out a fallacy itself fallacious.

Most appeals to authority are in lieu of any actual argument, so it's more of a thought terminating cliche or red herring. If allowed, those appealing to authority can just continue to avoid rebuttals by telling people to take it up with the authority, which effectively ends meaningful discussion with the person. Calling out an appeal to authority is not an ad hominem because it is not an attack on the person but an attack on their fallacious argument.

This article conflates a lot of stuff to arrive at its conclusion. Hypocrisy is a valid complaint when someone tells you to do something they do not, like leftists building walls around their homes or not wanting children from poor schools in their children's or having the most income inequality and racial segregation or jetting around the world to preach about climate change. Their arguments are undermined by their actions, and pointing this out can force them to present more than bare, moralizing assertions.

And the advice of doctors, etc. is not them appealing to authority; it is you simply accepting theirs...unless you then try to advise others based on that secondhand authority.