Talk:Genetic fallacy/Archive 1

Do the two 'examples' under 'external links' have enough relevance to be listed there? A manifesto is not expected to include analysis or exact reasoning, but to give direction. Presuppositions and connotations are part of it. It's the style, not a fallacy. --84.128.176.19 23:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The eugenics example is a pretty bad example, as stated, for two reasons:

1. The Nazis were not the first to practice eugenics. They were much more popular in the United States long before it was in Germany.

2. The use of recollections of the Nazis by opponents of eugenics (i.e., most commentators on eugenics at the present) is not because they were the first to practice it, but because they are an example of a slippery slope that actually occurred -- that people would use ideas of "inferior" and "superior" genetic qualities towards genocidal ends. It's a misrepresentation of the objection to say that the association is just because of its association with Hitler, in the same way that someone might say, "Well, Hitler was a vegetarian" as an argument against vegetarianism. Eugenics was a major component in Nazi ideology and a major justification used by the Nazis and many other nations for coercive policies. To disregard the skepticism felt by most people (including politicians and scientists) towards eugenics after their example as simply a form of "genetic fallacy" is pretty trite.

I'm going to remove the example unless it can be attributed to a specific source, cited -- i.e., so-and-so says that this is an example of a genetic fallacy. Otherwise it stands as a blantant violation of NPOV, in my mind. --Fastfission 19:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, seeing no objection, I removed it. --Fastfission 2 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)

I replaced it with a more straightforward one about Heidegger, i.e. Heidegger's philosophy can be arguably disconnected from his Nazi context. --Fastfission 2 July 2005 21:09 (UTC)

So why is it okay to have the Martin Heidegger example without a source but not the eugenics example? The book "The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American racism, and German national socialism" is a perfect example of someone trying to discredit eugenics by connecting it with Nazis. Dsh34 2 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)

Because the invocation of the Nazis in the eugenics example is clearly more complex than saying "the Nazis came up with it and thus it is bad," for the many reasons I gave above. (And if you'd read the Kühl book you'd see that's not quite what he's doing; his goal was to show that American eugenicists were not, as many had claimed, totally disconnected and unsympathetic to the Nazi goals and government, and in fact many had very close ties to them) The Heidegger example is one more in the spirit of philosophy anyway -- it is easy to see that the validity of Heidegger's more abstract ideas about time and the nature of meaning can be disassociated from their original context. In any event, the eugenics one is a dubious example at best, so I don't think it is a very good choice for one of the "canonical" examples for this page. --Fastfission 2 July 2005 21:57 (UTC)

Can anyone actually give an example of a genetic fallacy in "The communist Manifesto" ????? If not, it should be omitted here...

• I agree. If it isn't discussed explicitly in the text, it shouldn't just be linked to in a suggestive way. --Fastfission 23:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

"I replaced it with a more straightforward one about Heidegger, i.e. Heidegger's philosophy can be arguably disconnected from his Nazi context. "

I don't think this is a satisfactory example, since it's at least as arguable that Heidegger's philosophy led him to embrace Nazism, and this seems to be the version of the argument that's most commonly put forward. Then, assuming Nazism is wrong, the argument against Heidegger is a straightforward modus tollens John Quiggin 11:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the concept of a genetic fallacy is as straightforward as this article suggests. The wedding ring example is, I think, wrong. It is not illogical for people to reject things on the grounds of their history, symbolism etc. This is firstly a matter of fact (as many such claims are urban myths) and secondly a judgement call based on the case. While using symbols doesn't necessarily mean you are complicit in their history, knowingly using them could lead others to assume you are endorsing these values. You could argue that people would not assume you were endorsing sexism by wearing a wedding ring, but naming your child "Adolf Hitler" because you liked the name could well give a false impression.

To take another example, if a theory originated with a chimp at a keyboard, this would not logically prove it false. However, a reasonable person would prefer a theory developed by an expert.--Jack Upland 22:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Jack is clearly correct. I suspect the page is in urgent need of drastic editing, perhaps even a full rewrite. The wedding ring example is so ridiculous, it's unfathomable. I fear I might break out into an emotional allergic reaction if it permitted to remain in its present farcical state. The only thing preventing me from correcting the page myself is my ignorance of the appropriate procedure for editing Wikipedia pages. But the logical failing is so nonsensical, it's near unthinkable. It would be a logical rejection of an act of symbolism if the rejection was based on no other grounds than the symbolism. To suggest that it would be illogical to reject symbolic action on the grounds that the symbolism was initially conceived to represent something barbaric and degrading is utterly preposterous.

It is the purest form of logic to refuse to participate in action which can be argued to be senseless. To continue to participate in the tradition of exchanging wedding rings for no reason other than "tradition" would be an excellent example of "genetic fallacy". Imagining that the existence of tradition to be justified by it's existence is a "fallacy of virtue". Action that has no relevance whatsoever beyond an emotional attachment to a symbolic charade is substantially more alarming than actions insane by virtue of their redundancy. All aversion to progress that has its roots in sentimentality amount to serious mental illness that has alarming echoes of imprinting. Any tradition serving to represent nothing more rational than an emotional desire to maintain a symbolic link to the symbolism of the past is yet another symptomatic breakout of the emotional corruption (sentimentality > progress) that has reduced the stricken patient of Society to its present (extremely critical) condition.Goscuter1 08:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and corrected that abysmal "wedding ring example" with a minor rephrasing which (unlike the line it replaced) is logical and almost certainly has to have been the intended argument of the author who had failed to communicate his point. Goscuter1 20:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goscuter1 (talk • contribs)

About the origins of the term "genetic fallacy" (laugh it up), I remember the philosopher William James using the term in the Varieties of Religious Experience, which was published long before the Cohen and Nagel book. Anyone want to look into that? Foxdragoon (talk) 07:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Reductio ad Hitlerum

The problem with this reference is that the objection to using Hitler in an argument is usually not related to the 'genetic fallacy' (i.e. Hitler originated that idea) but in drawing a parallel with Hitler (i.e. that is the same as what Hitler did). The second issue is not a logical fallacy per se but depends on the actuality of the example. Hence this reference should probably be dropped.--Jack Upland 11:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. David Bergan 16:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Rightwing Bias

I think the conclusion of this discussion is that the concept of the discussion of "genetic fallacy" has a rightwing bias. The overwhelming majority of examples of this fallacy favour a rightwing perspective. The dictum that "the first person who mentions Hitler loses the argument" is a favourite for rightwingers because it gives them a "free pass" in defending appeals to patriotism, national security etc. Since leftwingers and progressives tend to have a more analytical and historical approach to issues they are instrinsically more liable to the accusation of "genetic fallacy". And, as I have pointed out before, the concept is not correct in practice. While a million monkeys typing could produce a correct proposition, the likelihood is that they would produce gibberish.--Jack Upland 09:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Illogicality

At the risk of labouring the point, does anyone really, seriously, endorse this position: "Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are irrelevant to its merits"? While arguable in terms of formaldehyde formal logic, it absolutely falls down in practice. Dishonesty, bias, prejudice, obsolescence, error, happenstance - all these are considered irrelevant to an issue's merits??? Surely not - but these are likely components of a critical "genetic account".--Jack Upland 09:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the position you quote. And why did you delete the wedding ring example? It was a neutral anecdote sourced directly from a textbook on the topic. David Bergan 08:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

But why do you endorse the position? Do you think dishonesty, bias, prejudice, obsolescence, error, and happenstance are irrelevant to an issue's merits? And I deleted the wedding ring example because no one had responded to my early argument that it was an invalid example. It doesn't illustrate the point being made at all. But if you want it in the article, I won't resist this.--Jack Upland 09:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do. I believe that logically appraising an idea or argument means that it may only be considered on its own merits. Does its premises reach its conclusions? Is the conclusion what we want? That is all that matters. Suppose someone presented a logically air tight argument on how to bring about world peace. Would it matter to you if that person lies pathologically, has an ego the size of New York, and drowns puppies? If the argument is legitimately air tight, it doesn't matter who thought it up. Granted, this person's past history might make us all the more cautious in our evaluation of his plan, but the idea shouldn't fail due to its genesis alone. We would have to find a logical inconsistency before aborting.

The wedding ring example has this same point. It would be patent nonsense if someone saw me on the street, pointed to my wedding ring, and denounced me as a chauvinist who keeps his wife in ankle chains. It's interesting that that may have been the original reason people wore wedding rings, but it is not the reason I wear a wedding ring. To assume that my ring endorses the ancient reason for wearing a ring is also logically fallacious. David Bergan 05:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of sense, it is sensible to presume a symbolic action represents what it was initially intended to communicate. To assert that your engagement in a symbolic action means something else, without deigning to disclose what that is, smacks of disingenuous denial and deceit. What is the reason that you wear a wedding ring? You forgot to disclose your new motive/s and logic. That is telling.Goscuter1 08:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your starting point, but the phrase 'logically appraising' amounts to weasel words. Travelling back in time you could discover someone who, at the time of the Munich Agreement, 'logically appraised' Hitler as delivering world peace. You might protest that Hitler was dishonest and racially prejudiced, and in turn be accused of 'genetic fallacy'. The point is that pure logic fails in complex situations when many relevant factors are unknown or unquantifiable. The point of view and character of someone offering a mathematical solution are clearly irrelevant, but this is not the case with a political solution. However, the examples of 'genetic fallacy' always cross this line.

As to wedding rings, I don't believe they originated in ankle chains, so I believe the case is trumped up. (I don't think this is irrelevant, because I think the truth matters - however 'illogical' that may sound.) Besides this, I think the example is more nuanced. If you are aware of the unpleasant history of a symbol but defiantly endorse it, this is likely to be negatively received. You might be a male chauvinist, or you might just be perverse. No symbol you adopt 'logically' means you endorse its resonances - any more than anything you say 'logically' means you believe it... So where does that get you???--Jack Upland 10:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Logically appraising" isn't a weasel phrase... it's a very structured discipline taught in schools about how to evaluate deductive statements. Whether or not one person (or a group of people) thinks something is logical does not make it so. "All lions are cats. All cats are mammals. Therefore all lions are mammals." If Hitler were to utter this phrase about lions, it would be true regardless of whether or not he initiated a Holocaust. If someone were to say, "Hitler was crazy and a mass murderer, everything he said was wrong, therefore lions are not mammals"... well, we would have an example of the genetic fallacy (specifically an ad hominem fallacy, one subcategory of the genetic fallacy). Rather than addressing the argument itself, they're attacking the genesis of the argument... which is usually good to consider, but ultimately has no bearing on the soundness of the idea. David Bergan 00:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

" I don't believe (wedding rings) originated in ankle chains". that's why we attribute it to a source. Whether or not it is true is not what we care about. This is a verifiable example used in a textbook that illustartes the matter at hand, quite appropriate for a tertiary resource. This is not the article on wedding ring.--ZayZayEM 06:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about wedding rings, but no one has said lions are not mammals because Hitler said they were. Plenty of people, however, have argued that the words of Hitler and others should be taken at face value. You're just ducking the central issue, which is that the origin of a proposition 'in the real world' can't be ignored. The reason I called 'logical appraising' weasel words is that it dodges this. You could rip a piece of paper from the typewriter of a chimp and 'logically appraise' it, but could you honestly take it seriously?--Jack Upland 04:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "in the real world"... Is Euclid's geometry in the real world? You'll never find perfect spheres or exact right angles in nature, but does that mean that we shouldn't study trigonometry in school? "Real world" shapes will approximate the ideal forms that we do study, just as "real world" arguments in politics, etc. would approximate the ideal forms in logic textbooks. I used the mammal analogy precisely because it is so obvious... it shows the pattern of the fallacy. You're absolutely right that "real world" examples are going to be much more subtle, but it doesn't do any good to use those in the article if they are so subtle that readers would miss the form of the fallacy. Nor would it be good to use examples that are controversial, where one side might see a genetic fallacy, but the other side would declare that it's a correct use of historical research.

Also, bear in mind that just because the genetic fallacy exists, is well defined, and is labeled... doesn't mean that there aren't times when it is valid to understand the origin of something. (ie Researchers trying to understand the origin of a specific strain of the flu.) The history of an object may or may not be relevant... but when it isn't relevant, to assert that it is would be fallacious. David Bergan 06:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This is my problem with what the article is saying: essentially, the 'fallacy' consists of saying something's relevant when it isn't. Sure, that's a fallacy. It's also a fallacy to say something's a blue pen when it's a pink elephant.--Jack Upland 09:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance. When an argument uses the history of an object in a way that is irrelevant to the issue at hand, it fails meet the criteria for a good argument. Calling a 'pink elephant' a 'blue pen' would also be a fallacy, but one of a different sort... not a genetic fallacy. David Bergan 18:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but we don't (yet!) have a page on the pink elephant/blue pen fallacy. Why??? Because it's trivial and we can find no genuine examples of this fallacy. But this also pertains to the genetic fallacy...--Jack Upland 10:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, logic textbooks don't think the genetic fallacy is trivial, and that's sufficient for justifying a wikipedia article according to the rules of the website. Show me a logic textbook with your pink elephant fallacy and I will be happy to start an article for you. Kind regards, David Bergan (talk) 08:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. Any old idiot can start a page in Wikipedia, but it takes a super idiot to produce a textbook.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It would seem to me that the discussion is looking at this topic from the wrong angle. To decide if an argument, based on a fallacy, is illogical is trivial - it is. Nor is the question of "is when is a `genetic' argument a fallacy and when it is within the bounds of reason" answerable in a general context as it is far to complex a subject. Instead it would seem more productive to explain that the term refers to this distinction, and perhaps the rhetoric significance with regard this distinction. As an example (but mainly because I find it humorous) consider the opening remarks on this page "Genetic accounts of an issue may be true,..., but they are irrelevant to its merits.". This is a specific conclusion pertaining to unformulated piece of reasoning, which is clearly not valid but is assumed so as it is has been valid in many cases historically. This argument is used in lieu of "Genetic accounts of an issue may be true,..., but are not in themselves conclusive, indeed fallacious genetic arguments are prevalent...". Also as a bit of house keeping I think "...a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context" should read something like "...a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its present state and context", as meaning or context does not cover sufficient context e.g. someone cannot have a current meaning or context. 155.198.75.173 (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I see the offending sentence is still in the article: "Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are irrelevant to its merits". I offer, several years later, another example: a proposition, which due to a typographical error, omits the word "not". Clearly, the proposition (in this form) could be true. However, if you were informed that the proposition was intended to read the opposite, I don't think you would agree that this is "irrelevant".--Jack Upland (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I've changed "irrelevant" to "not conclusive" ("not pivotal" or "decisive" might also work) in line with the comment made in 2011. This seems more in line with what the argument actually is.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The wedding ring example...

...Does anyone else think it doesn't really work? The fallacy is supposed to be when you say something is false because of the way it originated. In the wedding ring example, there are no truth claims being made, only value judgments. I don't see the logical flaw in saying "Wedding rings represent chauvinism, so I won't wear one." The way I understand it, the genetic fallacy is more like "People who believe in gods all have daddy issues, therefore God doesn't exist" or "This evolutionist admitted he only believes in it because he doesn't want to believe in God, therefore evolution is false." 153.42.230.49 (talk) 05:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The wedding ring example can go both ways. Wouldn't it be logically inappropriate for a couple to wear a wedding ring based on its traditional origin? Isn't that a genetic fallacy (according to the logic of that passage)? And it's ridiculous to say that a couple's decision to wear one would be based on logical validity in the first place, since a wedding ring has a complex symbolic value for the people involved. It makes sense to me to reject the ring on the grounds that its symbolic place in society would make it unsuitable for a symbolic place in your life, because you exist in the continuation of the society that created that symbolism in the first place (assuming that the chains were the ring's origin, which I think is false anyway). If we all could wear whatever we wanted on our wedding day, free of all biases and traditional influence, I think a lot of people would be wearing something other than rings or nothing at all.Ayyu (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is not a good example, I actually came to the talk page to make this point and found it had already been raised. When you are dealing with a wedding ring, or marriage as a whole, it continues to symbolise the same sexist notions. The fact that most have forgotten or overlook this does not make the statement false. I can quite understand someone not wanting to wear a wedding ring as we live in a world where marriage is still in-equal and in many cultures women are still abused through this institution. I don't think it's a logical fallacy for women and men to acknowledge this fact by not wearing a ring. I think a better example should be used, does anyone have any suggestions? If not I will attempt to write one. - Solar (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The wedding ring example simply has to go. Participation in symbolic action for no logical reason other than tradition is the ultimate genetic fallacy. - Goscuter1 08:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goscuter1 (talk • contribs)

I've corrected the wedding ring example; I am hopeful that there are no objections to my re-framing it to highlight the original textbook example of a logical fallacy? Goscuter1 20:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goscuter1 (talk • contribs)

I think your edit has improved the article. I still don't think it's a very good example. Fundamentally, as argued previously, I don't think the genetic fallacy is really a fallacy. The origins of an idea might be relevant or irrelevant depending on context.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Appeal against

There are probably quite a few articles on "fallacies" that are not actually fallacious or have significant numbers of informed defenders. ("slippery slope" being a prominent one. Many would claim that a great many "Slippery slope" arguments are not fallacious) In addition, every "appeal to-" genetic fallacy comes with an equal and opposite, "appeal against" fallacy. This should be mentioned. The appeal to accomplishment fallacy has a twin appeal against accomplishment fallacy. The appeal to poverty fallacy has a twin appeal to money or riches fallacy. Etc etc etc. Wikipedia should cover this, should weed out articles on non-fallacious fallacies and should provide a balanced discussion of whether disputed forms of argument such as "slippery slope" are in fact fallacies or not. --BenMcLean (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

POV

removed pov external link that was pro-atheist --58.164.108.6 (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Link to the edit.

I disagree with the link being POV. While the link is to an atheist site, the text itself is excellent at describing and giving examples of genetic fallacies. Several examples of the fallacy concerns arguments for religion, but it is not the point of the text to attack religion - the point is to describe logical reasoning, which also is the point of this Wikipedia article. That the text is on an atheist website does not make it POV, especially seeing as this article has nothing to do with religion (or areligion) to begin with.

On another point: if someone disagrees with your Wikipedia edit, and asks you to argue for your sake before starting an edit war - don't just revert again. Bring it up here instead. I'm leaving the article with your edit for not, to avoid furthering an edit war. - quispiam^talk [Anton Nordenfur] 19:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The link is not a reliable source because the author of the article is not a scholar or verified as a reliable source. --58.164.108.6 (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If that's your argument, why did you claim it to be POV to begin with? Now it feels like your first argument failed, so you pulled forth another, while you are still just against the site or the author to begin with. - quispiam^talk [Anton Nordenfur] 21:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I for one find the author quite reliable. Did you even look up? - quispiam^talk [Anton Nordenfur] 21:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Discrediting the integral works of an author is a classic example of a genetic fallacy. "The author is bad so all his arguments must be invalid." Hans Erren (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I can have more than 1 argument. Could the website also be a self-published source? --143.238.38.7 (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC) and the website has an atheist point of view --143.238.38.7 (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Austin Cline seems to be self-published. I can't find any books or print articles from him nor peer reviews of his work. The About.com site reads nicely but About.com has been called into question in WP:Reliable Sources notice board many times before and only was allowed if the author was an established authority. Austin Cline doesn't appear to be. Find a printed work by him or at least a dissertation. Just because the portal is an atheist POV is not a valid reason. Alatari (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

To repeat what I wrote on my talk page concerning this discussion: My original point was the user deleting information from multiple articles without justifying his reasoning, and so my original point wasn't that he was wrong, but that he should discuss it and seek a consensus before editing further. In this case, his original point was that anything published by an atheist or on an atheist website was by definition POV, and I disagreed and still disagree. When he changed his move to argue that the author wasn't reliable, my first move was to ask for his arguments to support this, seeing as he seemed to just make it up on the spot. After posting, I googled around for a while, but didn't find many reliable sources for the author, and so I gave up, reasoning that he either wasn't reliable, or it was too much work for too little. tl;dr: I do indeed think it's not POV, but I do think it's possible (after inadequate amounts of googling) that he's not reliable. So unless someone else wants to look for it, I consider it to be case closed. - quispiam^talk [Anton Nordenfur] 09:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)