 |
| Vancouver |
My new site URL and the 'first' post:
drrnm.blogspot.com
I have gone through Blogger, Facebook and Google+ and as far as I know all the links should have transferred over as far as main page and archived posts.
---
Back to a review of the Pirie text.
At Northview Community Church in Abbotsford, Wednesday night, 'Genetic Fallacy' was mentioned several times by the two speakers working within Christian apologetics.
So, how is this fallacy reviewed by Pirie?
And I shall also cite Blackburn.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
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 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) An example as potential sub-conscious and perhaps conscious thoughts:
I will not consider anything that Dr. Russell Norman Murray writes on his website,
because he is Christian and Canadian and I am non-religious and European.
Genetic fallacy is sometimes also known as 'damning the origin.' (116).
'Damning the source' would work as well as a term. My add, having read this elsewhere previously.
The author notes that the wicked can have good arguments and that saints can be silly. (116).
Arguments need to be considered objectively for soundness and not subjectively scorned because of source. Another example that comes to mind is a debate with a critic and friend from a few months 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, 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.
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.
 |
| Vancouver |
