# DarthDemono's Notes on Logic
> A blog
Website: https://logic.darthdemono.com
## Contents
### index
Logic This is a vault about arguing well. Not winning arguments. Arguing well.
Date: 2026-07-04
URL: https://logic.darthdemono.com/
Tags: Index
# Logic
This is a vault about arguing well. Not winning arguments. Arguing well. The two are not the same thing, and most people never learn the difference.
I started this after losing an argument I should have won. I was right, and I still lost, because I did not know how to name what the other person was doing to me. So I read. Now I write it down here, in plain terms, with examples and counters you can actually use.
Everything here is split into three folders.
## Fallacies
The bad moves. Each entry gives the etymology, a tight definition, the types it comes in, an example of each, and a counter you can use when someone pulls it on you. The counter matters more than the label. Knowing the name of the trap does nothing if you cannot get out of it.
- [[Ad Hominem (To the Person)]] — attacking the proponent instead of the argument.
- [[Argumentum Ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)]] — arguing with a threat.
- [[Circulus in Probando (Circular Reasoning)]] — using the claim to prove the claim.
- [[Genetic Fallacy]] — judging a claim by where it came from, not what it says.
- [[Red Herring (Distraction)]] — dragging the topic somewhere else.
- [[Strawman Fallacy]] — beating a version of the argument that was never made.
## Principles
The foundations. The ideas everything else rests on. Fewer entries here, but they hold up the rest.
- [[Causality]] — the relationship between cause and effect, and why you cannot escape it.
## Notes
Loose knowledge that is not a fallacy and not a principle, but still worth keeping close.
- [[Proper Sources]] — what counts as evidence, and how to tell a real source from a convincing one.
## How to use this
Read the fallacy entries first. They are the most practical. When someone does something in an argument that feels wrong but you cannot say why, come here and find the name for it. Once a bad move has a name, it stops working on you.
That is the whole point. You do not study logic to sound smart. You study it so you stop getting fooled.
---
### Causality
“All lies within the currents of Causality” - Kentaro Miura, Berserk, vol. 12, 1996, chap. 76, 14.
Date: 2026-07-04
URL: https://logic.darthdemono.com/Principles/Causality
Tags: Fallacy
#### “All lies within the currents of Causality” - Kentaro Miura, _Berserk_, vol. 12, 1996, chap. 76, 14.
## Etymology:
- The French term “_causalité_” or the Latin term “_causalitas_” comes from the Latin term “_causa_” which translates to “cause”.
## Definition:
- **Causality** is the relationship between cause and effect.
- The principle of **Causality** states that everything has a cause.
## Details:
Causality is an abstract principle which shows how our world flows. It shows how an event can lead up to another event, showing the flow of chains of events. All of these flowing chains are combined together and called “Currents of Causality”. Everything in existence lies in it. No matter what you do, you cannot escape from the currents of causality. You are stuck in the chains of events unfolding since the dawn of the universe until it’s demise. I made it sound a little scary. But, in the most layman term, if you do something and something happens as a result, that is an example of causality.
---
### Proper Sources
Proper Sources (Evidence) Source TypeScholarly?AdvantagesDisadvantagesBest Tools for Finding This SourceBooksSometimes.
Date: 2026-07-04
URL: https://logic.darthdemono.com/Notes/Proper-Sources
Tags: Sources
## Proper Sources (Evidence)
| Source Type | Scholarly? | Advantages | Disadvantages | Best Tools for Finding This Source |
| ----------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Books** | Sometimes. Verify the author's credentials and look for references or footnotes. | Offer detailed information and typically go through an editorial process to ensure quality. | Can be outdated and may contain biases. The editorial process is not foolproof. | Library catalogs, online bookstores, Google Books |
| **Peer-reviewed Articles** | Yes | Written by experts, peer-reviewed to ensure validity, originality, and significance. | Can be complex and difficult for non-experts to understand. The peer-review process is imperfect. | Academic databases like JSTOR, PubMed, Google Scholar |
| **Magazine and Newspaper Articles** | No. These sources can be credible but are not scholarly. | Provide commentary, generally easy for a broad audience to understand. | Can be influenced by current trends and may contain information later disproven. | Library databases, online news archives, Google News |
| **Websites** | No. Websites can lead to scholarly sources if references are provided. | Easily accessible and familiar to most users. | Requires careful evaluation to ensure credibility. | Google, educational institutions’ websites, online encyclopedias like Britannica |
Adapted from University Libraries at University at Albany
## Proper Sources (People)
| Source Type | Scholarly? | Advantages | Disadvantages | Best Tools for Finding This Source |
| --------------------------------------- | ---------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)** | Yes | Offer deep insights and authoritative opinions based on extensive experience and expertise. | May have biases based on their field or past experiences. | Professional associations, LinkedIn, academic institutions’ directories |
| **Industry Professionals** | Often | Practical knowledge and real-world application of theories and concepts. | May lack theoretical knowledge or scholarly background. | Industry forums, company websites, professional networking sites. |
| **Journalists and Reporters** | Sometimes | Skilled in research, often provide well-rounded, investigative insights. | May lack depth in technical knowledge, can be influenced by biases. | News organizations, journalist profiles on social media |
| **General Public (Anecdotal Evidence)** | No | Provide diverse perspectives and real-life experiences. | Anecdotal and not necessarily representative or reliable. | Social media, forums, community groups |
![[Scientific Sources.png|center md]]
---
### Red Herring (Distraction)
“The red herring is a fallacious argument whose effectiveness lies in distraction” - Irving M.
Date: 2026-07-04
URL: https://logic.darthdemono.com/Fallacies/Red-Herring-(Distraction)
Tags: Fallacy
#### “The red herring is a fallacious argument whose effectiveness lies in distraction” - Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen, and Kenneth McMahon, _Introduction to Logic_, 14th Edition, 2014, 115.
## Etymology:
- The origin of the term “Red Herring” comes from an article by **William Corbett** in 1807. He mentions a story from his childhood where he used a red herring to distract a dog from a hare. Now, it is used as a term for distractions.
## Definition:
- Anything that distracts a person from the main topic/argument is called a Red Herring.
![[Red Herring.png|center md]]
General Pattern of the Red Herring Fallacy from Argumentation Theory
## Details:
Red Herring is an Informal Fallacy. It is the favorite of parents. They use distraction tactics to divert their kids' attention to another topic during an argument. Yes, those “Go study” or “You did X in this exam” during an argument on you wanting something was a Red Herring fallacy.
## Types of Red Herring:
1. **Whataboutism:** What about “X”.
- **Example:**
- **X:** “We need to improve our healthcare system.”
- **Y:** “What about our economy? We need to strengthen it first.”
- **Counter:**
- **Address the diversion:** “Economy can be discussed later, we are discussing healthcare right now.”
2. **Irrelevant Topic:** Simply bringing up an irrelevant topic.
- **Example:**
- **X:** “I will eat pizza.”
- **Y:** “Did you do your homework today?”
- **Counter:**
- **If it’s your parents:**
- **Give up:** Just give up, there is no arguing with your parents.
- **Address the diversion:** “Homework has nothing to do with eating.”
3. **A lot of Fallacies fall under the banner of Red Herring, Such as:**
- [[Ad Hominem (To the Person)]]
- [[Strawman Fallacy]]
- [[Ad Populum (Appeal to the People)]]
- [[Argumentum Ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Authority)]]
- [[Genetic Fallacy]]
- etc.
## Why?
### Why is it a Fallacy?
A distraction is not an argument. Red Herring fallacy is merely a distraction; it doesn’t counter the original argument. It switches to a different topic.
### Why would someone do this?
- **Accidentally:** Someone might bring up another topic by accident.
- **Intentionally:** It can be done intentionally to distract the proponent and switch the topic to something the proponent cannot defend properly or to avoid answering a question.
## When is it fair to use Red Herring (Distraction)?
Almost never, but in a situation of grave danger, changing the topic might be necessary to save a life. But remember, this is a rare exception.
---
### Circulus in Probando (Circular Reasoning)
”One might think the fallacy would be so obvious that no one would ever commit it, but that is not the case.” - Irving M.
Date: 2026-07-04
URL: https://logic.darthdemono.com/Fallacies/Circulus-in-Probando-(Circular-Reasoning)
Tags: Fallacy
#### _”One might think the fallacy would be so obvious that no one would ever commit it, but that is not the case."_ - Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen, and Kenneth McMahon, _Introduction to Logic_, 14th Edition, 2014, 140.
## Etymology:
- The Latin term "_Circulus in Probando_" translates to “a circle in proof”.
## Definition:
- When the beginning and the end of a chain of proof are the same, it's called the Circular Reasoning Fallacy.
- The argument circles back on itself without providing independent explanation/evidence for its claim.
![[Circular Reasoning.png|center md]]
Avoiding the Pitfalls of Circular Reasoning by ASAT
## Details:
Circular Reasoning is an informal fallacy. The argument goes: X happens due to Y, Y happens due to Z, and Z happens due to X. This is a circular argument.
## Types of Circular Reasoning:
1. **Petitio Principii (Begging the Question)**: Happens when the premise already includes the conclusion.
1. **Restating the Conclusion**: Restating the conclusion but using different words to make it sound more reasonable.
- **Example:**
- **X:** “A taxation system of that kind will never succeed, because it cannot work.”
- **Counter**:
- **Ask for an explanation:** “Can you please explain why the taxation system cannot work?”
2. **Assuming Unstated Premises**: Relying on premises that are unstated or unexplained.
- **Example:**
- **X:** “We must reduce taxes to improve the economy.”
- **Y:** “How will reducing taxes improve the economy?”
- **X:** “Because the best way to improve the economy is to reduce the taxes.”
- **Counter**:
- **Challenge the unexplained premise:** “Is there any data that supports what you are stating?”
3. **Loaded Question**: Assumes something to be true without explaining why.
- **Example:**
- **X:** “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
- (Assumes you are beating your wife, and either answer “Yes” or “No” will mean that you have beaten your wife.)
- **Counter:**
- **Directly address the assumption:** “I do not condone any violence in my relationship.”
- **Highlight the flaw:** “You are assuming that I’m beating my wife without any evidence. It is childish to use such Loaded Questions.”
2. **Petitio Principii (Circular Definition)**: Term which is defined using the term itself.
- **Example:**
- **X:** “A woman is someone who identifies as a woman.”
- (The definition needs to be independent without using the term itself; here, "woman" is used as a term for defining "woman.")
- **Counter:**
- **Highlight the flaw:** “You cannot use the term itself to define a term. This is what we call a Circular Definition fallacy.”
- **Use a proper and clear definition:** “Sorry, but a woman is an adult human female.”
- (One should use both of these counters to properly respond.)
3. **Circular Explanation**: Restates the original assertion without adding anything new.
- **Example:**
- **X:** "Why do we need laws?"
- **Y:** "Because without laws, we would have anarchy."
- **X:** "What is anarchy?"
- **Y:** "It is a situation where there are no laws."
- **Counter:**
- **Ask for an explanation:** “Can you explain how the lack of laws leads to anarchy?”
1. **Assuming the Conclusion**: As the name implies, it's when the conclusion is assumed already.
- **Example:**
- **X:** “Lying is wrong because it's wrong to lie.”
- (No explanation has been given on why it is wrong; it just assumes that lying is wrong.)
- **Counter:**
- **Ask for an explanation:** “Can you explain why exactly lying is wrong?”
## Why?
### Why is it a Fallacy?
The reason why Circular Reasoning is a fallacy is because it is fallacious. Nah, I'm kidding. It is a fallacy because to prove something or to disprove it, you need independent confirmation/evidence. Circular Reasoning repeats its own claims without external verifiable confirmation. It creates a circular chain where it tries to validate itself but fails. Similar to attempting to lift yourself by pulling your own leg, nothing happens, and at worst, you fall down.
### Why would someone do this?
Different reasons exist for using various types of circular reasoning fallacies.
- **Lack of Knowledge on Logic:** Some fallacies, like Assuming Unstated Premises or Restating the Conclusion, might come from a lack of understanding of logical reasoning.
- **Deception:** Loaded questions are used to deceive by assuming something negative about the proponent.
- **Making a Point Without Knowledge:** Circular Explanation and Assuming the Conclusion fallacies can happen when a proponent tries to make a point or wants to say something without any knowledge.
## When Is It Fair to Use?
Never, that’s it, never.
---
### Argumentum Ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)
”The appeal to force is the abandonment of reason.” - Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen, and Kenneth McMahon, Introduction to Logic, 14th Edition, 2014, 122.
Date: 2026-07-04
URL: https://logic.darthdemono.com/Fallacies/Argumentum-Ad-Baculum-(Appeal-to-Force)
Tags: Fallacy
#### _”The appeal to force is the abandonment of reason."_ - Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen, and Kenneth McMahon, _Introduction to Logic_, 14th Edition, 2014, 122.
## Etymology:
- The Latin term “_Argumentum ad baculum_” translates to "argument to the stick."
## Definition:
- When the argument consists of a threat / when a threat is given, it’s called the Appeal to Force fallacy.
- It is a form of coercion.
![[Appeal to Force.png|center lg]]
Appeal to Force Coloring Page by Picture Book Apologetics
## Details:
Appeal to Force is an informal fallacy. One of the favorite tactics of parents, teachers, or bosses when you don’t agree or when they don’t want to deal with you. Typically used as a [[Red Herring (Distraction)]].
## Types of Argumentum Ad Baculum (Appeal to Force):
1. **Physical Threats:** Direct physical threats.
- **Example:**
- **Mugger:** “Give me your wallet or else I will stab you.”
- **Counter:**
- **Agree:** If it's a mugging situation, just agree and give them your wallet.
- **Fight:** Not recommended, but sometimes one needs to fight.
- **Ignore (if possible):** Not recommended for this example, of course, but if it's possible to ignore, do it. Especially if the argument is online, just leave the argument; they have nothing better to say.
2. **Threats of Punishment:** Threatening with negative consequences.
- **Example:**
- **Employee:** “It is not possible to finish the project in time; we lack manpower.”
- **Boss:** “If you don't meet this deadline, you're fired!”
- **Counter:**
- **Ignore (if possible):** Do not attempt to reason with such people; try your best to ignore.
3. **Threats of Authority:** Attempting to shut down a debate using any form of power.
- **Example:**
- **Child:** “I want more privacy as I’m growing older.”
- **Parents:** “You can have that when you get kicked out of the house.”
- **Counter:**
- **Give up:** Just give up, there is no arguing with them.
## Why?
### Why is it a Fallacy?
Appeal to Force is a type of coercion and a [[Red Herring (Distraction)]]. It doesn’t focus on the argument at all. It tries to shut up the proponent and it is merely a distraction, not a counter.
### Why would someone do this?
- **Lack of Convincing Evidence:** When someone lacks evidence and they have some sort of power, they might use this.
- **Desire for Control:** Megalomaniacs love control. They might commit this fallacy just because they want it to be their way.
- **Manipulation:** It can be used to manipulate you into submission.
## When is it Fair to Use Argumentum Ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)?
Never. It’s never fair to use the Appeal to Force; an enlightened mind will always try to use reason, at least with another adult. This is different from stopping little kids (ages 1-8) from doing something.
---
### Ad Hominem (To the Person)
“Of all the fallacies of irrelevance, the argument against the person, or ad hominem, is among the most pernicious.” - Irving M.
Date: 2026-07-04
URL: https://logic.darthdemono.com/Fallacies/Ad-Hominem-(To-the-Person)
Tags: Fallacy
#### _“Of all the fallacies of irrelevance, the argument against the person, or ad hominem, is among the most pernicious.”_ - Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen, and Kenneth McMahon, _Introduction to Logic_, 14th Edition, 2014, 118.
## Etymology:
- The Latin term “_ad hominem_” translates to “to the person.”
## Definition:
- When a person attacks the proponent during an argument instead of the argument itself, it’s called the Ad Hominem Fallacy.
- An attack done to the person during this fallacy is called an Ad Hominem Attack.
![[Ad Hominem.png|center md]]
Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement
## Details:
The fallacy in topic is Ad Hominem/Against the person/To the person Fallacy. It is an informal fallacy. It’s one of the most common fallacies, especially in Bangladesh. Instead of arguing constructively, people prefer to engage in insulting each other. This is, as you can expect, objectively illogical. An Ad Hominem attack doesn't address the argument itself; it merely distracts from the issue.
## Types of Ad Hominem:
1. **Abusive Ad Hominem:** Straight-up insults/swearing/name-calling.
- **Example:**
- **X:** “These three issues need to be fixed for our country’s development.”
- **Y:** “You are just stupid and evil!”
- **Counters:**
- **Ignoring:** This is often the best strategy. Do not lower yourself to their level by responding with insults.
- **Refocusing:** “Please focus on the issue instead of personal insults.”
2. **Circumstantial Ad Hominem:** Questioning the validity or motive of the proponent.
- **Example:**
- **X:** “Our country needs to get rid of problematic traditions.”
- **Y:** “You are too young to make that statement!”
- **Counters:**
- **Address the Argument:** “My age does not determine my ability to comment on this issue.”
- **Appeal to Credibility (if possible):** “As someone who has studied this issue for X years, I believe...”
3. **Tu Quoque (You too):** Attempts to call out the proponent on hypocrisy.
- **Example:**
- **X:** “Fast foods are very unhealthy.”
- **Y:** “But you eat burgers every day.”
- (Here, X is a hypocrite because their actions contradict their argument, and Y tries to refute X’s argument by pointing out this hypocrisy. But this does not mean X is wrong.)
- **Counters:**
- **Address the Argument:** “That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that...”
- **Acknowledge and Explain (if applicable):** “You have a point, but I'm working on changing my habits. However, the issue of...”
4. **Guilt by Association:** Attempt to discredit the argument by associating them with a negative group or ideology.
- **Example:**
- **X:** “We need to impose stricter gun control laws.”
- **Y:** “Are you a criminal? You are because you want to take our guns away.”
- **Counters:**
- **Disassociate the Argument from the Group:** “My argument is based on logic, not affiliation with any group. Let's focus on the actual reasons I believe...”
- **Highlight the Flaw:** “That tactic is called 'guilt by association' and it's a logical fallacy. The real issue is...”
## Why?
### Why is it a fallacy?
Why is it a fallacy? I think it’s pretty self-explanatory. Nothing good comes out of it; instead, people get hurt and no debate is properly resolved.
### Why would someone do this?
The main objective behind this fallacy is to either devalue the proponent's argument or dismiss it completely. It is typically used as a [[Red Herring (Distraction)]]. It might distract the proponent, but it doesn’t refute their argument.
## Respecting the Opponent
We mustn’t disrespect our opponent because not only does it show that we might be immature, it also shows that we do not have proper points to use against them. In real life, it is basic etiquette to show basic human respect. We should always respect our opponent to a certain degree. However, exceptions might be considered in cases involving fake online IDs. If an opponent does not engage respectfully by using their real ID, it may be appropriate to take them less seriously. This, however, is different from discrediting their argument altogether.
## When is it Fair to Use Ad Hominem?
Almost never, but certain exceptions do exist. If the opponent keeps continuously swearing at you, you have the right to swear back at them. But I do not recommend it as it would lower you to their level and swearing is not productive anyways. It might be acceptable when the opponent deliberately annoys you using illogic and fallacies. If the opponent straight up doesn’t argue with you or debate properly, only asserts claims as fact, labeling them as “stupid” might be appropriate. These are justified responses, but none of them are recommended. Do not lower yourself to the level of people you dislike.
---
### Strawman Fallacy
”The very core of any straw man attack lies in an opponent’s misrepresentation of a proponent’s position, an analyst of argumentation needs to be able to draw the line between representation and misrepresentation” - Lewiński, Marcin, and Steve Oswald.
Date: 2026-07-04
URL: https://logic.darthdemono.com/Fallacies/Strawman-Fallacy
Tags: Fallacy
#### _”The very core of any straw man attack lies in an opponent's misrepresentation of a proponent's position, an analyst of argumentation needs to be able to draw the line between representation and misrepresentation”_ - Lewiński, Marcin, and Steve Oswald. “When and How Do We Deal with Straw Men?” _Journal of Pragmatics_ 59 (December 1, 2013): 164–77.
## Etymology:
- “Man of straw” is a rhetoric term which means “an easily refuted imaginary opponent in an argument.”
## Definition:
- A strawman is a misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the proponent's argument.
- Creating a straw man (fake version) of the proponent and knocking down that fake made-up version instead of the real person.
![[Strawman.png|center md]]
## Details:
Taking the proponent's argument and modifying or manipulating it into a much more absurd or easier-to-argue version, and then refuting that version instead of the actual argument. It can be used as [[Red Herring (Distraction)]] too. It is very common in political debates where one politician attempts to make the other one sound ridiculous. Refuting an imaginary argument which never existed in the first place. When one attempts to put up a strawman, it can be hard to notice it. The proponent needs to be aware when such attempt is made or else they might fall for it. Awareness like this can be gained through argument experience.
## Types of Strawman Fallacy:
1. **Oversimplification:** Oversimplifying the proponent's argument to the point that all complexity is lost.
- **Example:**
- **X:** “We should invest in public transportation.”
- **Y:** “You want everyone to take crowded buses to go everywhere?”
- **Counter:**
- **Clarification:** “I did not mention that. I want us to invest in public transportation. This does not necessarily mean I want everyone to use buses everywhere.”
2. **Exaggeration:** Exaggerating the proponent's argument to the point that the argument is extreme.
- **Example:**
- **X:** “We should regulate extreme medicines like fentanyl.”
- **Y:** “You want everyone to die due to a lack of medicines?”
- **Counter:**
- **Clarification:** “I did not mention that. I want us to regulate fentanyl. This does not mean I want everyone to never use medicine ever.”
3. **Quoting Out of Context:** Taking the statement out of the original context.
1. **Partial Quoting:** Removing parts of the quote.
- **Example:**
- **Original Quote:** “I like this design but it has some flaws.”
- **Out of Context Quote:** “I like this design.”
- **Counter:**
- **Restating:** “My full statement also includes my criticism.”
2. **Selective Quoting:** Similar to partial quoting, but done to fit a narrative.
- **Example:**
- **Original Quote:** “Blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb.”
- **Out of Context Quote:** “Blood is thicker than water.”
- **Counter:**
- **Completing:** “Please consider the entire quote; it is ‘Blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb.’”
3. **Decontextualizing:** Removing the surrounding context that gives meaning to the statement.
- **Example:**
- **Original Quote:** “In the context of historical events, the decision made sense.”
- **Out of Context Quote:** “The decision made sense.”
- **Counter:**
- **Providing Context:** “The decision made sense, but only in the context of historical events.”
4. **Rephrasing:** Slightly altering the wording to change the meaning.
- **Example:**
- **Original Quote:** “We might change this policy in the future.”
- **Out of Context Quote:** “We will change this policy.”
- **Counter:**
- **Correcting:** “I didn’t say we will; I said we might.”
4. **False Attribution:** Attributing an argument that the proponent never made.
- **Example:**
- **X:** “We should invest in the education sector.”
- **Y:** “My opponent wants to completely defund the medical sector.”
- **Counter:**
- **Correction:** “I never said that, in any capacity. Do not put words in my mouth. I said we should invest in the education sector.”
## Why?
### Why is it a Fallacy?
The strawman fallacy is a fallacy because it does not actually refute the argument. It refutes a made-up version of the argument. It depends on tactics such as oversimplification or exaggeration to make the proponent's argument sound ridiculous and makes it easier to refute. It avoids the actual argument and creates a [[Red Herring (Distraction)]].
### Why would someone do this?
- **Easier to Attack:** The made-up straw man is just easier to attack than the actual argument.
- **Accidental:** The opponent might accidentally misinterpret the proponent's argument and by effect misrepresent it.
- **Manipulation:** One can use it to manipulate the proponent to switch to defend the made-up version of the argument.
- **Distraction:** It can be used to distract the proponent from his actual topic.
## When is it Fair to Use Strawman Fallacy?
Never. It is never fair nor wise to deliberately use tactics such as the Strawman.
---
### 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.” - Bradley Dowden, “Fallacies,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.d., sec.
Date: 2026-07-04
URL: https://logic.darthdemono.com/Fallacies/Genetic-Fallacy
Tags: 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.”_ - Bradley Dowden, “Fallacies,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.d., sec. Genetic Fallacy.
## Etymology:
- The term “Genetic Fallacy” originated in [Morris Raphael Cohen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Raphael_Cohen "Morris Raphael Cohen") and [Ernest Nagel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Nagel "Ernest Nagel")'s book **Logic and Scientific Method**.
![[Genetic Fallacy.png|center sm]]
## 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](https://worldnewsdailyreport.com) and [NewsBiscuit](https://newsbiscuit.com) are not accepted.
## When is it Fair to Use Genetic Fallacy?
Never. Remember, never commit genetic fallacy, but proper criticism is always acceptable.
---