Reply #85: That's the 'genetic fallacy', not a reply [View All]

Genetic fallacy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.

The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question.<1> Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are irrelevant to its merits. <2>

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_genetic.htm
Fallacies of Relevance > Ad Hominem Arguments

Explanation:
Another variation of the ad hominem fallacy does not necessarily attack the person directly, but instead attacks the origins for the position they are proposing. This is called the Genetic Fallacy, because it is based on the idea that the original source of an idea is a sound basis for evaluating its truth or reasonableness.

Examples and Discussion:
Like other forms of the ad hominem argument, the genetic fallacy typically occurs when a person is unable to found a strong basis for his or her position. ....

Note:
Emphasis mine

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html


Description of Genetic Fallacy
A Genetic Fallacy is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

The origin of a claim or thing is presented.
The claim is true(or false) or the thing is supported (or discredited).
It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. However, my parents brought me up to believe that 1+1=254, so Bill must be wrong."

It should be noted that there are some cases in which the origin of a claim is relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim. For example, a claim that comes from a reliable expert is likely to be true (provided it is in her area of expertise).