8
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 78:
Line 78: + + + + + + + + + +
→Genetic Fallacy: new section
:::What you seem to think a tautology is, is actually an ''axiom''. An axiom (from the [[Greek]] ''axios'' worthy, deserving) is something that all sides can agree upon. It is also something that ''deserves'' to have all sides agree upon it.
:::What you seem to think a tautology is, is actually an ''axiom''. An axiom (from the [[Greek]] ''axios'' worthy, deserving) is something that all sides can agree upon. It is also something that ''deserves'' to have all sides agree upon it.
:::A fallacious tautology is either a ''redundancy'' (a statement of the obvious in a manner suggesting that another case could obtain that would violate the definition) or an attempt to assert a definition that ''not'' all sides can agree upon. The way one does this is usually to couch a definition in a manner that tries to make it more than it actually is. I've seen it used to mask proof by assertion, and also circular reasoning, another common fallacy.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 21:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::A fallacious tautology is either a ''redundancy'' (a statement of the obvious in a manner suggesting that another case could obtain that would violate the definition) or an attempt to assert a definition that ''not'' all sides can agree upon. The way one does this is usually to couch a definition in a manner that tries to make it more than it actually is. I've seen it used to mask proof by assertion, and also circular reasoning, another common fallacy.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 21:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
== Genetic Fallacy ==
The page claims that "The genetic fallacy does not apply to arguments against a theory that caused a true believer to commit atrocities in reliance on the theory", but this is entirely incorrect. Regardless of whether or not Hitler used the theory of ballistics to bomb London (the example given), the theory of ballistics could still be true or false. Regard the example given:
* Hitler and his top aides believed in the theory of ballistics
* Hitler and his top aides relied on the theory of ballistics to bomb London
* Therefore, the theory of ballistics is likely wrong
This is a logical fallacy because it presents no evidence for its conclusion; it merely appeals to the consequences of belief in the theory of ballistics. The theory of ballistics might still be true, even if used to justify horrible atrocities. I think whomever said that "The genetic fallacy does not apply to arguments against a theory that caused a true believer to commit atrocities in reliance on the theory" is confusing an ideology with a theory. Ideologies can be 'wrong' in that we find them objectionable, but they cannot be factually incorrect because they're opinions. Scientific theories like the theories of ballistics or gravity cannot be 'wrong' solely because we find them objectionable, but they can be factually wrong. So yes, the genetic fallacy does apply, even when used to justify horrible atrocities. I don't want to change it because the founder of Conservapedia is the one who made up this excuse and I don't want to be banned. [[User:TFWilliams|TFWilliams]] 14:08, 21 June 2009 (EDT)