Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
3,026
edits
Changes
→Genetic fallacy: clarified
*If P then Q
*If P then Q
*P is false
*P is false
*Therefore Q is false
*Therefore Q is false
Formally, the error arises in confusing "If P, then Q" with "If and only if P, then Q."
When the origin of ''evidence'' or of ''premises'' is relevant to the reliability of the same, then asking a hearer to "consider the source" is valid. Judges in courts of [[law]], for example, routinely reject as unreliable the testimony of any witness who has demonstrably lied about a point that matters in the case at hand. The facts that such a witness is asserting might still be true, but they cannot stand without corroboration from another, more reliable witness.
When the origin of ''evidence'' or of ''premises'' is relevant to the reliability of the same, then asking a hearer to "consider the source" is valid. Judges in courts of [[law]], for example, routinely reject as unreliable the testimony of any witness who has demonstrably lied about a point that matters in the case at hand. The facts that such a witness is asserting might still be true, but they cannot stand without corroboration from another, more reliable witness.