Genetic Fallacy
From SkepticWiki
Contents |
[edit] Definition
The genetic fallacy is an informal logical fallacy, where a participant argues that a belief is incorrect, not in its own right, but because of where it originated, typically an attribute of the person who originated or presented the belief. There are several different forms of this fallacy, often with their own names, but they tend to follow one of these two general structures, either
- Person A claims that P
- Person A is untrustworthy.
- Therefore, P is false.
or
- Person A claims that P
- Person A is particularly trustworthy.
- Therefore, P is true.
This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to its origin.
[edit] Examples
Example 1:
- Protagonist: The newspaper says that four members of this administration have been indicted for corruption.
- Antagonist: Yes, but the newspaper has always been biased against this administration, so I don't believe it.
Example 2:
- Protagonist: California makes a much better burgundy than France.
- Antagonist: Well, of course you say that. You own a California winery.
Example 3:
- Antagonist: Paul de Man was a Nazi sympathizer in the Second World War; his theories on literary criticism must be wrong.
[edit] Exceptions to the Rule
It can sometimes be very difficult to evaluate the impact and appropriateness of a genetic argument, in part because the argument, although formally fallacious, is often appropriate and relevant. For example, the testimony of a jailhouse informant, who testifies against someone else in exchange for privileges or a lighter sentence, is often given little weight by trial jurors. A person clearly motivated by self-interest cannot necessarily be trusted to tell the truth, and conversely, a person acting against his own self-interest may paradoxically be more credible.
Similarly, in many cases a statement or opinion should be considered to be more credible because it comes from a recognized expert or group of experts in a relevant subject.
A key aspect of understanding the genetic fallacy is to determine whether the origin is relevant to the question at hand. A newspaper on a crusade might indeed (unethically) shade the facts in keeping with its mission, and a veterinary surgeon is likely to know more about animal anatomy than a member of the general public, but questions of Nazi membership are unlikely to influence someone's literary theories.
