Genetic Fallacy

• Main
• Wikipedia
• All Subpages
• Create New
  Analysis Characters Laconic Recap Trivia Setting YMMV Fridge Fanfic Recs Haiku Headscratchers Ho Yay Image Links Memes Radar Quotes Reviews Useful Notes WMG Awesome Funny Heartwarming Nightmare Fuel Tear Jerker

/wiki/Genetic Fallacywork

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 can potentially be right, or that a more credible source can potentially be wrong. 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.

Sub-fallacies include:

• Ad Hominem
  • 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
• 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
  • Reductio ad Hitlerum
    • Godwin's Law
  • Reductio ad Stalinum
• Bulverism (assuming one's opponent is wrong and explaining the error - Circular Reasoning 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)
• Poisoning the well
• Whataboutism (answering a question with a different question)

Examples of Genetic Fallacy include:

• "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.
  • In later volumes of the Honor Harrington series, officials of the Solarian League underestimate the military technology and expertise of the highly respected Royal Manticoran Navy, simply because it is not Solarian.
• The outright rejection of a factual claim 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, to be sure. But to immediately classify all his observations and testimony as false by definition is a classic instance of this fallacy, and ignores what might be called "The Stopped Clock Principle": even a broken clock is correct 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. It is necessary to investigate his claims to avoid the fallacy.
• A tragic real-world example would be 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 AIDS 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. 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.