Archives for April 22, 2022

Description:

A Genetic Fallacy is a flawed argument that comes in negative and positive variations.  In the negative version a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken as evidence discrediting the claim or thing itself. The positive variation is an error in reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or proof that the thing is true or good. A Demonic Genetic Fallacy is always negative. The Demonic Genetic fallacy has the following two forms:

 

Form 1

Premise 1: Claim (or argument) C originates from group G.

Premise 2: Group G is demonized.

Conclusion: Therefore, C is false (or the argument fails).

 

Form 2

Premise 1: A originated from O.

Premise 2: O is demonized.

Conclusion: A is discredited.

 

The reason why the Demonic Genetic fallacy is a fallacy is that demonizing a group or origin has no bearing on the truth of a claim, the quality of an argument or the origin of a thing. In addition to the logical error, a Demonic Genetic fallacy also suffers from the fact that demonizing, by definition, involves deception. At the very least, demonizing involves taking facts out of context and commonly involves outright falsehoods.

The demonic version of this fallacy involves two steps, the first of which distinguishes the demonic from the normal Genetic Fallacy.

First, the target, which is the origin of the claim or thing, is demonized. Demonizing is portraying the target as evil, corrupt, dangerous, or threatening.  This can be done in the usual three ways: selective demonizing, hyperbolic demonizing, or fictional demonizing.

Selective demonizing is when some true negative fact about the target is focused on to the exclusion of other facts about the target.  Hyperbolic demonizing involves greatly exaggerating a negative fact about the target. Fictional demonizing is simply lying about the target. Second, the attack on the origin of the claim or thing is taken to discredit the claim or thing.

A demonic genetic fallacy can have considerable psychological force since demonizing typically goes beyond the usual attacks in a normal Genetic Fallacies and thus can trigger strong emotions. A common tactic is to demonize the target using stereotypes the audience already accepts and by appealing to their biases, fears, and prejudices. Such an audience will be inclined to accept the demonization and their emotional response can lead them to accept the fallacious reasoning.

A genetic fallacy, demonic or not, differs from the Ad Hominem fallacies in that a strictly defined ad hominem always targets an individual while the genetic fallacy can be used to target groups or institutions.

 

Defense: There are two main defenses against this fallacy. The first is to be aware of the logical flaw in the fallacy. Even if the demonizing claims were true, the reasoning would still be flawed: true but irrelevant negative claims about the origin of something, no matter how terrible, do not disprove a claim or argument or prove a defect in the thing.

The second is to be critical of negative claims and only accept them if they are adequately supported by evidence.

 

Example #1

“The so-called conservative media claims that Pelosi has engaged in insider trading, but they are a pack of sexist fascists who have set out to destroy America. Oh, I am sure they are also racist, but I guess that would not apply to Pelosi. Or maybe it does?”

Example #2

“The teacher’s union has said that the law they pejoratively call ‘Don’t Say Gay’ is aimed at hurting LGBGT children in our public schools. While some people might be simply confused about the law, we can be sure that the union is controlled by pedophiles who have been grooming children. So, we can dismiss their lies. This law will protect children. Protect them from the predators that now rule our schools.”

Also Known As: Fallacy of Origin, Fallacy of Virtue

Description:

A Genetic Fallacy is reasoning in which an alleged defect in the origin of something is taken as evidence that discredits it. It is also a fallacy in which the origin of something is taken as evidence in its favor. It is called “the Genetic Fallacy” because the inference is based on the genesis of a thing. The origin of something can also include its history or its sources. This reasoning has the following form:

 

Premise 1:  The origin of X is presented.

Conclusion:  X is true (or false) or supported (or discredited).

This is a fallacy because the origin of something does not, by itself, prove that it is true or good.

This fallacy is often used as a sort of group Ad Hominem:

 

Premise 1:  The group making claim X is attacked.

Conclusion:  X is false.

 

Or sort of a group Positive Ad Hominem:

 

Premise 1: Group A makes claim X.

Premise 2: Person B notes a positive (but logically irrelevant) feature of A.

Premise 3: A’s claim is true.

 

The distinction is that in strict terms an Ad Hominem targets an individual while a Genetic Fallacy targets a group. For example, “Bill is a Republican, so he is wrong about tax cuts” would be an Ad Hominem since it attacks Bill’s claim because he is a Republican. “The Republican Party is wrong about tax cuts because you know, they are Republicans. We all know that that means” would be a Genetic Fallacy because it attacks a group, the Republican Party, rather than an individual. Not everyone accepts this distinction, and it would not be necessarily wrong to speak about Ad Hominem attacks against groups.

This fallacy can also refer to the history of something. For example, the current Republican party often claims that it is the party of Lincoln, which is presumably supposed to “prove” that the current version of party is good or not racist or something. While it is true that Lincoln was a Republican in the 1880s, this does not prove (or disprove) that the current party is good or not racist.

This fallacy can seem like an Appeal to Tradition, a fallacy is which something being a tradition is taken as evidence that it is true or good. This differs from the Genetic Fallacy in that the Genetic Fallacy appeals to the origin of something rather than it being a tradition. These fallacies can certainly be used together. For example, a person might appeal to a tradition and appeal to its origin to “prove” that it is true or good.

It should be noted that there are 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. This would be a good Argument from Authority (see the Appeal to Authority, Fallacious for this discussion).

As a final point, a non-fallacious case can be made that something is good or bad now by examining its history up to the present. As such, the fallacy is not that the origin or history of something is considered, but that it is the only thing considered. If, for example, a law has a terrible history of misuse and this misuse has persisted, then concluding the law is bad now would not be a Genetic Fallacy.

 

Defense: The main defense is keeping in mind that except for good Arguments from Authority, the origin of a claim is irrelevant to its truth. In the case of other things, their origins, source, or history do not, by themselves prove (or disprove) that something is good or bad.

 

Example #1:

“Yeah, the environmentalists do claim that over-development can lead to all kinds of serious problems. But we all know about those darn bunny huggers and their silly views!”

 

Example #2:

“I was brought up to believe in God, and my parents told me God exists, so He must.”

 

Example #3:

“Sure, the media claims that Senator Bedfellow was taking kickbacks. But we all know about the media’s credibility, don’t we?”

 

Example #4:

Ted: “You know, up until the Civil War the Democrats were the dominant political party in the south. As such, many of these Democrats supported slavery, which was opposed by many Republicans at the time.”

Nancy: “Really?”

Ted: “Historical fact. This proves that the Democrats are the real racists. We Republicans have been against racism since Lincoln.”

Kyle: “Are you going to tell Nancy about the Southern Strategy? You know, how the modern Republican party was able to get many southern Democrats to switch to the Republican party?”

Nancy: “What about that, Ted?”

Ted: “That is just a lie. You know that what those racist Democrats say are lies aimed at hurting America. So don’t you believe that the Southern Strategy is any more than a liberal lie.”

 

Example #5:

“Republicans say that we have too many regulations. They are obviously wrong. I mean, they are Republicans so they cannot be believed.”

 

Example #6:

“Amazon issued a statement saying that unions are bad for the economy and that workers are better off without them. I don’t even need to argue against this. The fact that Amazon says it proves it is wrong.”

Description:

The Gambler’s Fallacy is committed it is concluded that a departure from what occurs on average or in the long term will be corrected in the short term. The form of the fallacy is as follows:

 

Premise 1: X happened.

Premise 2: X departs from what is expected to occur on average or over the long term.

Conclusion: Therefore, X will end soon.

 

 

There are two common ways this fallacy is committed. In both cases it is inferred that a result must be “due” because what has previously happened departs from what would be expected on average or over the long term.

The first version involves events whose probabilities are independent of one another. For example, one toss of a coin does not affect the next toss. So, each time the coin is tossed there is a 50% chance of heads and a 50% chance tails. Imagine someone tosses a coin 6 times and gets a head each time. If  they concludes that the next toss will be tails because tails “is due”, then they will have committed this fallacy. This is because the results of previous tosses have no bearing on the outcome of the 7th toss. It has a 50% chance of being heads and a 50% chance of being tails, just like any other toss.

The second version involves cases whose probabilities of occurring are not independent of one another. For example, suppose that a boxer has won 50% of his fights over the past two years. Suppose that after several fights they have won 50% of their matches this year, that they have lost their last six fights and they have six remaining. If a person believed that the boxer would win the next six fights because they have “used up” their losses and are “due” for a victory, then this would be a fallacy. After all, the person would be ignoring the fact that the results of one match can influence the results of the next. For example, the boxer might have been injured in one match which would lower their chances of winning the last six fights.

Not all predictions about what is likely to occur are fallacious. If a person has good evidence for a prediction, then they will be reasonable to accept. For example, if a person tosses a normal coin and gets nine heads in a row it would be reasonable for them to conclude that they will probably not get another nine in a row again. This reasoning would not be fallacious if the conclusion is based on an understanding of the laws of probability. In this case, if it were concluded that they would not get another nine heads in a row because the odds of getting nine heads in a row are lower than getting fewer than nine heads in a row, then this reasoning would be good, and this conclusion would be justified. Hence, determining whether the Gambler’s Fallacy is being committed can requires some basic understanding of the laws of probability.

The Gambler’s Fallacy is commonly self-inflicted and can lead people to make poor decisions. It can also be inflicted on others, to encourage them to make bad decisions. For example, a person who has been losing at a casino might be encouraged by others that they “are due” to win a hand and they could also convince themselves of this unsupported claim.

 

Defense: Because of its psychological power, this fallacy can be difficulty to defend against. Logically, the defense against it is having a grasp of basic probability and knowing when the outcome of a previous event can impact the next event and when it cannot. The obvious problem with this is that it is math defense going up against what can often be a strong feeling.

 

Example #1:

Bill is playing against Doug in a tabletop WWII tank battle game. Doug has had a great “streak of luck” and has been killing Bill’s tanks left and right with good rolls. Bill, who has a few tanks left, decides to risk all in a desperate attack on Doug. He is a bit worried that Doug might wipe him out, but he thinks that since Doug’s luck has been so good, Doug must be due for some bad dice rolls. Bill launches his attack and is shocked when Doug wipes him out.

 

Example #2:

Jane and Bill are talking:

Jane: “I’ll be able to buy that car I always wanted soon.”

Bill: “Why, did you get a raise?”

Jane: “No. But you know how I’ve been playing the lottery all these years?”

Bill: “Yes, you buy a ticket for every drawing, without fail.”

Jane: “And I’ve lost every time.”

Bill: “So why do you think you will win this time?”

Jane: “Well, after all those losses I’m due for a win.”

 

Example #3:

Joe and Sam are at the racetrack betting on horses.

Joe: “You see that horse over there? He lost his last four races. I’m going to bet on him.”

Sam: ‘Why? I think he will probably lose.”

Joe: “No way, Sam. I looked up the horse’s stats and he has won half his races in the past two years. Since he has lost three of his last four races, he’ll have to win this race. So, I’m betting the farm on him.”

Sam: “Are you sure?”

Joe: “Of course, I’m sure. That pony is due, man…he’s due!”

Description:

This fallacy occurs when it is inferred that an often-irrelevant shared quality (or qualities) shows that two things are equivalent, often in terms of their degree or magnitude. One way to formalize this fallacy is as follows:

 

Premise 1: A is X (to degree D) because it has qualities A, B, and C.

Premise 2: B has quality C.

Conclusion: A and B are equivalent, so B is X (to degree D).

 

This reasoning is defective because it does not follow that because two things have qualities in common that they are equivalent. To use an extreme example, while it is true that both Adolph Hitler and Donald Trump were elected officials, this does not entail that they are equivalent. It also does not follow that they are not equivalent.

What this reasoning lacks is an adequate comparison of A and B to determine if they are similar enough to warrant the inference that they are equivalent. If a strong enough Argument by Analogy can be made, then the claim of equivalence would be supported one and the fallacy would be avoided. The logical defense against a false accusation you have made a false equivalence is to present just such a strong argument.

While people often make use of this fallacy for nefarious reasons, people also fall into it in good faith. Sometimes the fallacy is even the result of good intention. For example, credible American news sources often try to include both sides of an issue. This is laudable when both sides are worthy of serious consideration and roughly on par. But when one side is quite evidently not even close in credibility, including both sides can lend credence to a view that has not earned it.

This fallacy can be self-inflicted but is most often used in bad faith. In such cases the person using the fallacy is aware that they are making a False Equivalence but are hoping the target audience will not be critical enough to notice it. This fallacy is most effective when the target of the false equivalence is something the target audience has strong feelings about.

This fallacy can be employed to try to downplay the severity of something. For example, someone might compare a major oil spill to having a bit of oil leaking from a car. The fallacy can also be used to try to persuade the target audience that something minor is extreme. For example, someone might compare a run of the mill political proposal to the evils of the Nazis.

 

Defense: The defense against this fallacy is to assess the comparison being drawn to determine if it supports the alleged equivalence. See also False Analogy.

 

Example #1

“I don’t get why people think my having a pet tiger is a bad idea. It is a pet that I must take care of, just as I would take care of a cat or a dog.”

 

Example #2

“The Republicans are proposing that we build more prisons. Need I remind you that under Stalin the Soviet Union built more prisons?”

 

Example #3

“A military pilot who bombs a target that results in civilian deaths is just like a criminal who sets off a bomb in a church or school. Both are murders who should be executed.”

 

Example #4  

“The theory that the earth is hollow is a theory just like the theory of evolution. So, the hollow earth theory should be taught in public schools.”

 

Example #5

“Both those politicians are big liars. Smith exaggerated about the number of jobs he created. Brown said he never committed sexual assault, but six people have come forward with credible accusations. It doesn’t matter who you vote for, a liar is going to win.”

Also Known as: Black & White Thinking

Description:

A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which two options are presented as if they are the only two options and since one is claimed to be false, the other must be true. This fallacy occurs when there are more than two options. This fallacy has the following pattern of reasoning:

 

Premise 1: Either claim X or Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).

Premise 2: Claim Y is false.

Conclusion: Therefore, claim X is true.

 

This is fallacious because if both claims could be false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false. That this is the case is made clear by the following example:

 

Premise 1: Either 1+1 =4 or 1+1=12.

Premise 2: It is not the case that 1+1 = 4.

Conclusion: Therefore 1+1 =12.

 

While this fallacy can be self-inflicted, it can also be used against others. When used this way, a common tactic is to ensure that one of the options is appealing or implausible to the target of the fallacy. This can be done using various rhetorical techniques, such as hyperbole, or other fallacies, such as Straw Man.

In cases in which the two options are the only two options, this line of reasoning is not fallacious. For example:

 

Premise 1: Bill is dead or alive.

Premise 2: Bill is not dead.

Conclusion: Therefore, Bill is alive.

 

A variant of the False Dilemma is the Perfectionist Fallacy. In this case, the false dilemma is between something being perfect or rejecting it. Since perfection is not possible, it is concluded that the thing must be rejected. It has the following form:

 

Premise 1: X must be perfect, or it must be rejected (when there are other options).

Premise 2: X is not perfect.

Conclusion: Therefore, X must be rejected.

 

A person might honestly believe that perfection or other unreasonably high standard is required and commit this fallacy in good faith. But the fallacy is usually used as a bad faith argument to reject something. In such cases, the person committing the fallacy knows they are intentionally requiring an unreasonably high standard and are hoping the fallacy will go undetected. This is a form of False Dilemma because it occurs when there are other viable options beyond perfection (or unreasonably high standards) or nothing.

It is not a fallacy to require that something meet reasonable standards or be rejected. There can be good-faith debates about what counts as a reasonable standard, so merely having high standards does not entail that this fallacy has been committed. For example, while a hospital administrator should not expect a perfect backup power system, it would be reasonable for them to expect a reliable system that could power the hospital for an adequate amount of time. How reliable and how long-lasting the system must be can certainly be debated.

Another variant is the Line Drawing Fallacy (sometimes known as the Sorites Fallacy). In this fallacy, it is claimed that unless a precise line can be specified between two things, there is no line or difference between the two. The fallacy can be presented in this manner:

 

Premise 1: An exact line between X and Y must be drawable or there is no distinction between X and Y (when no such line must be drawn).

Premise 2: An exact line cannot be drawn between X and Y.

Conclusion: Therefore, there is no distinction between X and Y.

 

This is a form of the False Dilemma fallacy because it erroneously presents the target with two choices that are not the only two options. In this case, one option is drawing a precise line and the other is that there is no distinction.

When I first learned about this fallacy as an undergraduate, the examples were mostly academic constructs. For example, if you pull hair from a person’s head one at a time, you cannot specify the exact number of hairs you must remove before the person is bald. Therefore, you can never make a person bald by pulling out their hair. As another example, if you give a person one dollar at a time, you cannot specify the exact number of dollars you must give them before the person is rich. Therefore, you can never make a person rich by giving them one dollar at a time.

In 1990, however, this fallacy featured prominently in the trial of the officers who beat Rodney King providing the first example I knew that showed this fallacy can have serious consequences. The reasoning used by the jury can be presented as follows:

 

Premise 1: The first time King was struck was not excessive force.

Premise 2:  If excessive force was used during the beating, then there must be a specific strike at which point the force went from warranted to excessive.

Premise 3: This strike cannot be identified.

Conclusion: The force used in the beating did not become excessive.

 

While it is (probably) true that the exact point of transition cannot be determined, this is not necessary to determine that it eventually became excessive.

 

Defense: To avoid inflicting this fallacy on yourself, pause to check to see if you have considered all the (reasonable) options. If someone else is trying to inflict this fallacy on you, take the time to consider whether they have offered all the (reasonable) options. Since those who intentionally use this fallacy will often try to make the option they want you to reject look bad, it is also a good idea to look for the use of other rhetorical devices (such as hyperbole) and other fallacies (such as Straw Man).

 

Example #1:

Senator Jill: “We’ll have to cut education funding this year.”

Senator Bill” “Why?”

Senator Jill: “Well, either we cut the social programs, or we live with a huge deficit, and we can’t live with the deficit.”

 

Example #2:

Bill: “Jill and I both support having prayer in public schools.”

Jill: “Hey, I never said that!”

Bill: “You’re not an atheist are you, Jill?

 

Example #3:

“Look, you are going to have to make up your mind. Either you decide that you can afford this stereo, or you decide you are going to do without music for a while.”