Changes

====''Poisoning the well''====

====''Poisoning the well''====

Poisoning the well is a particular type of ''ad hominem'' argument. It consists of attempts to discredit a speaker (and, by extension, their argument) by criticizing unrelated opinions that they hold or, more generally, by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person that has no bearing on the argument.<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html Fallacy: Poisoning the Well]</ref> The first variant of the argument follows this form:

Poisoning the well is a particular type of ''ad hominem'' argument. It consists of attempts to discredit a speaker (and, by extension, their argument) by criticizing unrelated opinions that they hold or, alternatively, by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person to discredit in advance any argument that that person may make.<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html Fallacy: Poisoning the Well]</ref> The first variant of the argument follows this form:

*Person A makes argument X.

*Person A makes argument X.

*Therefore, person A must also be wrong about X.

*Therefore, person A must also be wrong about X.

The more general second variant follows this form:

The second variant follows this form:

*Person A makes argument X.

*Person A makes argument X.

*Therefore, person A must be wrong about X.

*Therefore, person A must be wrong about X.

One example of this was by the actor [[Matt Damon]], who attempted to discredit [[Sarah Palin|Sarah Palin's]] political credibility on the basis that she was a young-earth creationist: {{cquote|You know, the hockey mom, you know, "I'm just a hockey mom from Alaska," and she's the president. And it's like she's facing down Vladimir Putin and you know, using the folksy stuff she learned at the hockey rink, you know, it's just absurd. It's totally absurd, and I don't understand why more people aren't talking about how absurd it is. I...it's a really terrifying possibility. The fact that we've gotten this far and we're that close to this being a reality is crazy. Crazy. I mean, did she really - I need to know if she really thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago. That's an important - I want to know that. I really do. Because she's gonna have the nuclear codes. You know, I wanna know if she thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago, or if she banned books or tried to ban books. I mean, you know, we can't have that.<ref>Page F30. [http://www.pagef30.com/2008/09/matt-damon-on-sarah-palin-with.html ''Matt Damon on Sarah Palin with transcript''] (2008)</ref>}}

One example of the first variant was by the actor [[Matt Damon]], who attempted to discredit [[Sarah Palin|Sarah Palin's]] political credibility on the basis that she was a young-earth creationist: {{cquote|You know, the hockey mom, you know, "I'm just a hockey mom from Alaska," and she's the president. And it's like she's facing down Vladimir Putin and you know, using the folksy stuff she learned at the hockey rink, you know, it's just absurd. It's totally absurd, and I don't understand why more people aren't talking about how absurd it is. I...it's a really terrifying possibility. The fact that we've gotten this far and we're that close to this being a reality is crazy. Crazy. I mean, did she really - I need to know if she really thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago. That's an important - I want to know that. I really do. Because she's gonna have the nuclear codes. You know, I wanna know if she thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago, or if she banned books or tried to ban books. I mean, you know, we can't have that.<ref>Page F30. [http://www.pagef30.com/2008/09/matt-damon-on-sarah-palin-with.html ''Matt Damon on Sarah Palin with transcript''] (2008)</ref>}}

When spelled out in the above form, the fallacy is easily seen, but it is used very frequently in political debate where skillful use of rhetoric can mask the underlying fallacy. The argument is fallacious because a person's opinions on one subject do not affect the truth or falsity of their statements on other subjects or because the asserted unfavorable information has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the position being attacked.  There is some overlap between poisoning the well and ''ad hominem'' abusive.

 

When spelled out in the above form, the fallacy is easily seen, but it is used very frequently in political debate where skillful use of rhetoric can mask the underlying fallacy. The argument is fallacious because a person's opinions on one subject do not affect the truth or falsity of their statements on other subjects or because the asserted unfavorable information has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the position being attacked.  There is some overlap between poisoning the well and ''ad hominem'' abusive, although poisoning the well in the second sense is used to mean introducing the irrelevant information preemptively.

===Genetic fallacy===

===Genetic fallacy===