Philosophy

Genetic Fallacy [from http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html]
Genetic Fallacy is a line of “reasoning” in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or
thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning
in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing. This sort of
“reasoning” has the following form:
1. The origin of a claim or thing is presented.
2. The claim is true (or false) or the thing is supported (or discredited).
It is clear that sort of “reasoning” is fallacious. For example: “Bill claims that 1+1 = 2. However,
my parents brought me up to believe that 1+1 = 254, so Bill must be wrong.”
It should be noted that there are some cases in which the origin of a claim is relevant to the truth
or falsity of the claim. For example, a claim that comes from a reliable expert is likely to be true
(provided it is in his or her area of expertise).
***[But even in this case, says your professor Soble, whether the expert’s view is rational/right
depends ultimately on the quality of the evidence that can be put together, by him or her or
others, for and against the claim.]***
Examples of Genetic Fallacy
1. “The current Chancellor of Germany was in the Hitler Youth at age 3. With that sort of
background, his so-called ‘reform’ plan must be a facist program.”
2. “I was brought up to believe in God, and my parents told me God exists, so He must
exist.”
3. “Sure, the media claims that Senator Bedfellow was taking kickbacks. But we all know
about the media’s credibility, don’t we.”
More from Soble –
Perhaps the main point to be made about the impact or implications of this fallacy = there are
two separate, logically distinct questions we can ask about a claim or belief or assertion. (1)
Where did it come from; what are its origins; how did we arrive at the belief (a causal story in
part or whole). And (2) is the claim or belief or assertion true, or is it false. What is the evidence
for or against the claim, and is this evidence decisive? The issue of the origin of a belief is
distinct from the issue of the rationality and/or truth of the belief. (The fallacy mixes them up.)
To think about: carefully compare the “genetic fallacy” as described and discussed on this
sheet with the “genetic fallacy” as presented in the textbook (pp. 58-59). In what ways are they
the same or different? If they are different, explain the difference(s). Are the differences
important, or may we ignore them?
Maybe this will help in doing the assignment. Above there are three examples of the fallacy from
the web source cited. Here is an example from the textbook: Let’s not play tennis anymore. I just
learned that tennis was invented as an amusing distraction for the Kings of France and Britain. Hence it is
not a sport that it is appropriate for working class people to play.
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR PROMOTIONAL DISCOUNT DISPLAYED ON THE WEBSITE AND GET A DISCOUNT FOR YOUR PAPER NOW!