Changes

* Therefore, the theory of ballistics is likely wrong

* 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.  Logical fallacies have no exceptions - every logical fallacy is a logical fallacy.  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)

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.  Logical fallacies have no exceptions - every logical fallacy is a logical fallacy.  I don't want to change it because the founder of Conservapedia is the one who made up this excuse.

 

EDIT:  It's even in the wrong section; the argument should be under the "Ad hominem abusive" section as an example, since it bases its conclusion that the theory of ballistics is wrong on the fact that Hitler was a war criminal, even though the fact that Hitler was a war criminal has nothing to do with the theory of ballistics.

 

Replace "ballistics" with "evolution" as appropriate to answer previous edits of this page. [[User:TFWilliams|TFWilliams]] 14:08, 21 June 2009 (EDT)