Genetic Fallacy

“A critic uses the Genetic Fallacy if the critic attempts to discredit or support a claim or an argument because of its origin (genesis) when such an appeal to origins is irrelevant.”¹

Etymology:

• The term “Genetic Fallacy” originated in Morris Raphael Cohen and Ernest Nagel’s book Logic and Scientific Method.²

Definition:

• Attacking the source or origin of the evidence or argument is called the Genetic Fallacy.
• It occurs when one argues that a claim is true or false solely based on its origin rather than its merit.

Details:

Genetic Fallacy is an informal fallacy. It involves dismissing or refuting an argument or evidence based on its origin without explaining why the origin is wrong. It’s very similar to the Ad Hominem (To the Person) fallacy, but instead of attacking the person, it attacks the origin.

Proper Sources?

Learn about proper sources at Proper Sources.

Types of Genetic Fallacy:

1. Based on a Person: Very similar to Ad Hominem (To the Person) but instead of attacking the proponent, they attack the person who created the argument/evidence.

   • Example:
     • X: “We should listen to Neil deGrasse Tyson on his opinion on X topic.”
     • Y: “The guy who got pressed whenever Joe Rogan asked him about gravity?”
   • Counter:
     • Refocusing: “Can we focus on what he says instead of his ordeals with Joe Rogan?”

2. Based on a Group: Attacking the group where the argument/evidence originates from.

   • Example:
     • X: “What X politician said made sense.”
     • Y: “That politician’s proposal can’t be any good; they’re from the opposing party.”
   • Counter:
     • Refocusing: “Their affiliation with a party doesn’t make their argument wrong.”

3. EVERYONE IS WRONG: Borderline brainwashing. Saying everyone except them is wrong or “evil” without explaining why. If I wanted to manipulate someone, the first thing I would do is say everyone is wrong so that they only believe me.

   • Example:
     • X: “There is abundant consistent scientific evidence from multiple branches of science which says that humans originated by means of evolution, not creation.”
     • Y: “All of those scientists are evil slaves of Satan. Nothing good can come from them.”
   • Counter:
     • Give Up: With people like this, there is no point arguing. Leave for your betterment.

Why?

Why is it a Fallacy?

The origin of a proper argument/evidence is irrelevant. If evidence is irrefutable, even if it is presented by a 6-year-old, it is to be accepted. An argument should be evaluated based on its content and the logic it presents, not on who or where it came from.

Why would someone do this?

• Lack of Knowledge: Some people just do not know that attacking the source is illogical. You must make them understand the wrong in doing so.
• Lack of Argument: When they have nothing to say, they attack the source to defend their claims.
• Distraction: Some can use it as a Red Herring (Distraction) to distract the proponent.

Difference between Criticizing a Source and Genetic Fallacy

There is an obvious difference between criticizing a source and genetic fallacy, and that is the explanation. Genetic fallacy does not explain; actual criticism does, saying how a source may be unreliable. “This source is unreliable because they do not follow the scientific process” is a valid criticism. And obviously, satirical news sources like World News Daily Report and NewsBiscuit are not accepted.

When is it Fair to Use Genetic Fallacy?

Never. Remember, never commit genetic fallacy, but proper criticism is always acceptable.

References

Footnotes

1. Bradley Dowden, “Fallacies,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.d., sec. Genetic Fallacy. ↩

2. Morris R. Cohen and Ernest Nagel, An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method (1934). ↩