Logic Lessons: Genetic Fallacy and Poisoning the Well

I have a pair of fallacies for you, where the person is attacked rather than discussing the ideas presented on their own merits. This pair works well together, and sometimes the distinctions are blurry (even some of my sources disagree, since the ad hominem can merge with the "red herring" distraction). Since I have been subjected to this kind of "reasoning" lately, I can draw from my own experiences.

But I have to be careful, because I have been known to mix up the Genetic Fallacy and its close cousin, the Fallacy of Composition. 

First, the Poisoning the Well fallacy. To "poison the well", someone wants to discredit a person and ignore whatever he or she is about to present; a pre-emptive strike, if you will. You look bad before you even begin to speak. When discussing Creationism and showing the flaws in evolution, people have said that "Your Creationist sources are all disproved". Also, my news sources in other articles have been rejected out of hand because they are by Christian organizations, or Fox News. My references are not even examined by most of the critics, and they poison the well against anyone else who may have been considering checking them.
Meet its cousin, the Genetic Fallacy. This says that something is true or untrue because of its source, instead of its merit. It is a kind of red herring argument, because the user seeks to distract from the points being raised. Two points to make this more confusing: It is not always a fallacy to question the source of an argument or proposition, and sometimes the Genetic Fallacy is an ad hominem, but not always. To stay with the Creationism example, I have had my arguments rejected simply because I am a Creationist. Also, my statements have been rejected because I am a Christian.
Two fallacies. The genetic fallacy is the arbitrary rejection of something because of its source, poisoning the well happens when attempting to negate what the opposition has to say before it is said.

Both Poisoning the Well and the Genetic Fallacy are often used as manipulations in an argument. Watch for them, and call "Foul!" because good reasoning, presentations, ideas and logic are rejected. If something is untrue or invalid, it should be discussed instead of the idea, its origin or its presenter being ridiculed, capice? To me, this stinks of intellectual cowardice.

Even if you cannot exactly identify if the fallacy is Poisoning the Well or the Genetic Fallacy, you will still be able to point out the fact that the other party is not exactly playing fair.

Now I have a bonus for you. Remember Norman the Paranoid Troll? (His response to me giving him that name was to call me "Norman" right back.) Take a look at this:
Your assignment: Spot the ad hominem, Poisoning the Well and Genetic Fallacies. Be forewarned, though. They blend.


Popular posts from this blog

The Religion of Atheism

Image
In many practical aspects, atheism is a religion. "How can you say that, Cowboy Bob? Atheism is a lack of belief in gods". Yeah, sure. That's the cop-out redefinition, not the real definition . Except not all atheists got the memo , and some are confused. As I was saying, in many practical aspects, atheism is a religion . It is a philosophy of life and conduct, and has many of the trappings of organized religion. Although atheists will tell you that they believe in "reason", they actually have a religion that is based on faith. A lot of it. I can't go there, Girlfriend. In the United States, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that atheism is a religion The US Supreme Court ruled that atheism is a religion . Secular Humanism (a masque for atheism), received comments from the US Supreme Court that it is a religion (one of these groups wanted tax-exempt status as a religion) Atheists adore their religious leaders like Richard "...
Read more

Where Does It Stop?

Image
I was going to give these topics a rest, but something came up. On a previous post, Zach made a comment, and I am excerpting it here. His first sentence is an answer to a question I had asked him. Hope you're not embarrassed, but I want to give you a more complete response than the comments section would allow: My lack of belief in the supernatural is pretty much complete - I have never seen any reason to attribute a supernatural cause to phenomena. I suppose I rule out supernatural explanations because once you let one in, where do you stop? I look at an event I do not understand and go immediately to natural causes. Even if I can't figure it out, I still would assume it had a natural explanation. I'm worried that if someone started attributing causes to supernatural events, they would skip over the whole 'natural cause' thing and go straight for the supernatural, because technically everything is potentially explainable by an omnipotent being, no? ...
Read more

The Amazing Super Powers of the Mighty Atheist™

Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Years ago, I wrote "atheist" on Twitter, and one cautioned me about using that word because I risked "calling down the thunder". We know that they can be ornery cusses even on their good days, but I was unaware of the intellectual prowess and wisdom of The Mighty Atheist™, dwarfing that of a mere theist. What I had yet to learn, however, is that they also have super powers that are even magical at times. Now I know better. Christians and creationists, I hope you heed this warning! Graphic modified from  Clker clipart As with other super powers, those of The Mighty Atheist™ are difficult to categorize. Not all atheists and evolutionists have the same powers to the same degree, and there is no special school for gifted atheists under a professor so they can develop their abilities. Like logical fallacies, powers often blend and overlap. Let's saddle up and ride over yonder to Deception Pass where the atheists, atheopaths, anti-crea...
Read more