All The Tropes

Genetic Fallacy: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Genetic Fallacy (view source)

Revision as of 16:30, 24 September 2022

2,037 bytes added ,  1 year ago
no edit summary
VisualWikitext
(removed redundant subtitle at start of article, put fallacy definition in quote markup, needs more examples category)
No edit summary
 
(15 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{tropeUseful Notes}}
{{quote|Rejecting (or accepting) something solely on the basis of its origin, without looking at meaning or context. This ignores the fact that even a less credible source iscan sometimespotentially be right, or that a more credible source can potentially be, rightwrong. Alternately,This thatis aseen morein credibleany case where a source is sometimes,either highly disparaged or canesteemed. Sources will commonly be, wrong.}}accepted or dismissed out of hand without looking into the actual validity of their facts or arguments.
 
Sub-fallacies of the Genetic Fallacy include:
This is seen in any case where a source is either highly disparaged or esteemed. Sources will commonly be accepted or dismissed out of hand without looking into the actual validity of their facts or arguments.
* [[Ad Hominem]]
 
** Poisoning the well (the preemptive smearing of one's opponent)
Similar to, but definitely not the same as, [[Hitler Ate Sugar]].
** Responding to tone / Tone policing (criticizing one's opponent for expressing emotion)
** [[Tu quoque]]
* [[Appeal to Authority]] and Appeal from Authority
** Appeal to accomplishment (stating one's opponent has not done what one has done)
* Appeal to motive (claiming one's opponent has an ulterior motive for making the arguments that he made)
* Appeal to nature (claiming "natural" things are good ''because'' they're "natural")
* [[Appeal to Novelty]]
** Chronological snobbery (claiming "newer is better")
* [[Appeal to Tradition]]
* Argumentum ad crumenam ([[Appeal to Wealth]])
* Argumentum ad lazarum (Appeal to Poverty)
* [[Association Fallacy]]
** [[Hitler Ate Sugar|Reductio ad Hitlerum]]
*** [[Godwin's Law]]
** Reductio ad Stalinum
* Bulverism (assuming one's opponent is wrong and explaining the error - [[Circular Reasoning]] [[X Meets Y|meets]] Genetic Fallacy)
* Etymological fallacy (arguing about the meaning of a word used in one's opponent's argument)
* Ipse dixit (an assertion without proof)
* Whataboutism (answering a question with a different question)
 
{{examples}}
[[Category:{{Needs More Examples]]}}▼
The ur-example is perhaps Dr. Peter Duesberg. An oncologist at UC Berkeley, he became best known for claiming in 1987 that HIV did not cause AIDS, but that it was the result of recreational and or/antiretroviral drug use, with HIV being only a "harmless" passenger virus. Outrage predictably followed, and Duesberg quickly fell from grace. Worse, this view had a major influence on South African President Thabo Mbeki, who failed to provide antiretroviral drugs to AIDS victims (Duesberg claimed such drugs in fact caused AIDS rather than treating it), resulting in hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. However...Duesberg had discovered a gene that helps cause cancer in 1970, which he continued to conduct research on in the intervening years, including when he was involved with the AIDS controversy. As he was so ostracized and discredited, most of his research was not even read. [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-pariahs-have-good-ideas Ironically, it has potential to save millions of more lives than the deaths his AIDS denialism contributed to]. He demonstrates both sides of the fallacy, as many people believed his AIDS denialist theory due to his scientific credentials, while conversely other scientists did not read his work due to that very theory. ▼
* "[[Appeal to Tradition|Argument from age]]" would be the instance of this fallacy that is probably most familiar: because the claim is, or is made by, someone or something new or old, it is better or more reliable. "Latest research shows..." and "The ancient Greeks thought..." are both typical ways to lead into this fallacy, if nothing more than the fact that the age of the claim is considered or presented as relevant.
 
* "Not Invented Here": the rejection of a new idea or method not on its merits but simply because it originated outside the organization of which one is a member.
=== Looks like this fallacy but is not: ===
** In later volumes of the ''[[Honor Harrington]]'' series, officials of the Solarian League underestimate the military technology and expertise of the [[The Dreaded|highly respected]] Royal Manticoran Navy, simply because it is not Solarian.
* WhenThe outright rejection of a factual claim is rejected because the source of the claim is known to be unreliable. A man who suffers from frequent hallucinations could not be relied upon to always accurately report observations of the physical world, forto be examplesure. RejectingBut theto claimimmediately becauseclassify it''all'' washis madeobservations and testimony as false ''by definition'' is a delusionalclassic maninstance wouldof this fallacy, and ignores what might be called "The Stopped Clock Principle": even a Geneticbroken Fallacy,clock asis thecorrect twice a day. The man may not have been hallucinating when he made the observation, or even if he did hallucinate, the claim may still be true. But simplyIt sayingis thatnecessary theto hallucinatinginvestigate manhis cannotclaims offerto useful testimony one way oravoid the other is not this fallacy.
▲The* urA tragic real-world example iswould perhapsbe Dr. Peter Duesberg. An oncologist at UC Berkeley, he became best known for claiming in 1987 that HIV did not cause AIDS, but rather that itAIDS was the result of recreational and or/antiretroviral drug use, with HIV being only a "harmless" passenger virus. Outrage predictably followed, and Duesberg quickly fell from grace. Worse, this view had a major influence on South African President Thabo Mbeki, who failed to provide antiretroviral drugs to AIDS victims (Duesberg claimed such drugs in fact caused AIDS rather than treating it), resulting in hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. However...Duesberg had discovered a gene that helps cause cancer in 1970, which he continued to conduct research on in the intervening years, including when he was involved with the AIDS controversy. As he was so ostracized and discredited, most of his research was not even read. [https://web.archive.org/web/20120921023535/http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-pariahs-have-good-ideas Ironically, it has potential to save millions of more lives than the deaths his AIDS denialism contributed to]. He demonstrates both sides of the fallacy, as many people believed his AIDS denialist theory due to his scientific credentials, while conversely other scientists did not read his work due to that very theory.
 
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Genetic Fallacy{{PAGENAME}}]]▼
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]
▲[[Category:Needs More Examples]]
▲[[Category:Genetic Fallacy]]
[[Category:Tropes Needing Examples]]
Retrieved from "https://allthetropes.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1139809...1979197"