 |
Loebau, Germany, trekearth 2017
One of my favourite desktop photos.
Brilliant contrast. Colourized version. |
Genetic Fallacy/Damning The Origin/Damning The Source III
Archived Related Articles
My continued attempts at improvement and clarification with God's help.
Archived Edited Definitions From Two British Philosophers
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
Pirie:
'The genetic fallacy has nothing to do with Darwin'... (116) But a great deal to do with not liking where an argument comes from. (116). People give less credence to views which emanate from those they detest, regardless of the actual merit of the views themselves. (116).
Note that this fallacious approach demonstrates a lack of objective thinking. Objective thinking being a view and/or approach primarily based on the object, facts not feelings.
Instead this fallacy shows the use of subjective thinking, which more so as a view or approach reflects the thoughts of the person thinking, subjectively, than objective thoughts on the issue in question.
This view and/or approach would therefore be more influenced by feelings than facts.
To dismiss an argument based on source alone is to commit the genetic fallacy. (116)
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Interestingly, philosopher Blackburn again, as with elsewhere in his text, uses the word 'alleged' in regard to the subject of fallacy and in this case genetic fallacy. 'The alleged mistake of arguing that something is to be rejected because of its suspicious origins.' (155). A useful entry for balance: 'More widely, any mistake of inferring something about the nature of some topic from a proposition about its origins. Frequently such reasoning is, actually quite appropriate, as when one uses the make of an automobile as an indicator of its likely quality.' (155). Without disagreeing with the speakers or Pirie and the documented academic fallacy, I also once again can appreciate Blackburn's cautious and balanced academic approach as reasonable.
Academic considerations
An example I have written on previously, that comes to mind is a debate with a critic and friend from years ago.
The critic stated (paraphrased):
The academic work of Biblical scholars cannot be trusted because they are all Christians.
However:
Biblical scholars presenting academic work are Christians and non-Christians.
(There are for example, Jewish and Hebrew, Hebrew Bible scholars and some non-religious, Biblical scholars presenting academic work).
Christian scholars can have objectivity. The terms Christian and Biblical scholar are not mutually exclusive. By definition to be a scholar, recognized at a Masters and/or Doctoral level with a degree by a significant University, or roughly equivalent experience, requires at least a significant level of objectivity.
To work at a significant academic institution requires at least a significant level of objectivity, to have an academic book or work published by a significant publisher requires at least a significant level of objectivity.
Therefore the critic used the genetic fallacy and damned the origin and damned the source.
Instead, the critic, for the sake of truth, should seek objectivity in examining propositions/statements/conclusions made within the academic work of Biblical scholars. The critic, for the sake of truth, would need to seek objectivity in examining arguments, a premise (s) and conclusion made by Biblical scholars.
Practical considerations
To avoid fallaciously (at least, acknowledging what Blackburn states) damning the source, does the critic offer a reasonable:
Argument with a logical, premise and conclusion?
and/or
Argument with logical, premises and conclusion?
Or at least, a reasonable...
Statement/proposition, also known as conclusion?
Is there counter evidence against the critic's argument (s) and/or proposition (s) that is/are superior?
Does the critic speculate without reasonable evidence? There is philosophical room for speculation, granted, this is part of our curiosity in human nature, but speculative theories should not be held to as reasoned fact (s).
---
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.
LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
This article is part of a posting on academia.edu
