Table of Contents |
The genetic fallacy occurs when one argues (or, more commonly, implies) that the origin of a theory or idea is a reason for rejecting (or accepting) it. Although the roots of an idea can be interesting, they are not always relevant to the actual argument at hand. For a strong objection to an argument, opponents should explain what is wrong with the idea itself rather than focus on its origins. When origins are discussed, they should be able to explicitly explain how they affect the current argument.
EXAMPLE
When smoking bans began to be passed, the tobacco lobby argued that such bans had origins in Nazi Germany, which is historically accurate but irrelevant to why smoking bans were being proposed decades later in the U.S. The hope was to suggest that there was something sinister about the bans by linking them to Nazis. In this case, there were no clear connections made between smoking bans and other aspects of Nazi Germany, and the argument was not being made out of a good faith concern.Genetic fallacies can also be used to argue for something. For example, someone might argue that Jesus himself said that “the poor will always be with us,” so it is impossible to end poverty, and in turn, use that to reject a social welfare program designed to end poverty. In this case, the reasoning is set aside for the emotional link to a person millions worship and admire. But ideas must be assessed on their own merits, not their origins.
As with the other fallacies listed in this tutorial, there can be great emotional pull toward this fallacy. If you are reading the arguments of Thomas Jefferson, for example, you may be unable to forget that however lofty his ideas, he enslaved people and failed to acknowledge their humanity. Such deep flaws must surely be ingrained in his arguments, you might think. However, this is an error in reasoning unless you can expose the flaws in the arguments themselves. At the same time, it is a fallacy to presume the words of Jefferson are perfect or above criticism because he is so lionized in American history. We can and should (for the sake of good critical thinking) carefully evaluate his documents for biases and ideologies which might be linked to their origin.
| Genetic Fallacy | |
|---|---|
| It’s a fallacy when… | It’s not a fallacy if… |
| The origins of an idea are irrelevant to the current application of that idea. | The origins of the idea are explicitly connected and shown to be relevant to the current application of the idea. |
The appeal to consequences fallacy is the reverse of the genetic fallacy: while the genetic fallacy connects the truth or reasonableness of an idea based on its origins, the appeal to consequences fallacy is the mistake of trying to assess the truth or reasonableness of an idea based on the consequences of accepting that conclusion.
For example, suppose that a study proves a link between women not having access to legal abortion and increased child poverty, abuse, and neglect. Perhaps the researchers had set out hoping to prove the opposite and are stunned by the results. As staunch opponents of abortion, they may refuse to accept the legitimacy of the study and look back to find mistakes in the methodology. If it leads to the public reconsidering a ban on abortion, they reason, there must be something wrong with the study, or some flaw in its design. However, the fact that the results would have an unwanted effect is not a reason for rejecting the conclusions of the study as false. The consequences of an idea (good or bad) are irrelevant to the truth or reasonableness of that idea.
Notice that the researchers might choose not to publish the study since it does not support their goals. While this is not good scientific practice nor academic integrity, choosing not to publish disagreeable results is not itself a fallacy. The fallacy is deciding that the results themselves are false because they have negative implications. The fact is, sometimes truth can have negative consequences and falsehoods can have positive consequences.
This does not mean it is always a fallacy to measure the consequences of a specific action or decision. In fact, this is crucial to moral reasoning (as we will discuss in a later unit) and is part of good critical thinking. It is only a fallacy when you reject a reasonable or factual conclusion because the consequences of it being true may undermine other positions.
The appeal to consequences is used implicitly and explicitly in public policy. Abundant studies that demonstrate global warming are dismissed not based on the science, but on the lost jobs and other repercussions of trying to slow or stop climate change. There is great emotional pull to reject a study that challenges more deeply held beliefs, and might even change your way of life. Similarly, it takes strength to accept new information that might force you to revise your deeply held beliefs or even change your habits. This is the true sign of a good critical thinker.
| Appeal to Consequences | |
|---|---|
| It’s a fallacy when… | It’s not a fallacy if… |
| Legitimate conclusions or information are rejected because they might lead to unwanted consequences. | You look realistically at consequences as a direct result of your actions or decisions. |
The red herring fallacy involves diverting someone’s attention from the actual issue at hand by drawing the attention instead to an issue that has only a surface relevance to the argument. Red herrings may be an intentional or accidental diversion away from the core issues in the argument.
Consider a “common” colloquial retort to issues with money. If a grown child says to their parent, “Dad, it’s really hard to make a living on my salary,” a common rejoinder is for the dad to reply, “Consider yourself lucky! When I was your age, I made $40 a week.” Though, on the surface, this reply is tangentially relevant (it also talks of salaries), it takes attention away from the core issue, which is that the child has difficulty living on their salary. The dad’s salary at the same age being less than the child’s is irrelevant, as the cost of living was also lower.
Another common example of a red herring is the “starving kids in Africa” reply. Suppose that Tom broke up with his boyfriend and is expressing sadness to you. You reply, “Compared to the troubles of the starving kids in Africa, your problems are pretty small. So just think of that when you start getting sad.” This is a red herring: the difficulties that poor children in Africa or elsewhere may face are not at all relevant to the difficulty Tom is experiencing right now.
In a more political context, red herrings are often used to divert attention from the issue at hand to another issue constituents may feel strongly about. Suppose a senator gets pushed on the issue of abortion. A reporter asks, “Why won’t you support the anti-abortion amendment. Aren’t you concerned at all for the unborn children’s lives who have been blotted out?” The senator replies, “Why do you people get so worked up about the lives being blotted out by abortion when you don’t seem to care at all about the thousands of lives blotted out by poor handgun laws? Why don’t we focus on that?” Diverting from the issue of abortion to gun laws is a red herring as it is not directly related to the debate around abortion.
Here's an example from an actual politician shortly after a school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, in 2022. When responding to the deaths of the students killed by the shooter, Texas Lt. Governor Winsome Earle-Sears used several red herrings to avoid engaging with the argument that our gun laws are a core issue in the number of school shootings in the U.S. She stated that “we took prayer out of schools…we have emasculated our men…we have fatherless homes….” Though it can be argued that these are, in fact, societal problems, they are red herrings in the question around gun laws and mass shootings. She made these comments in response to a call for gun control after a school shooting. The statements quoted above are irrelevant to that question.
However, what feels like a red herring may not be after all, if the person can show the direct connection to the current argument. For example, if the dad who brings up his original salary can show that, adjusted for inflation, it is indeed a comparable amount to his son’s salary and follow up with financial planning for how to live on a budget as he did, it would be more relevant than it seems at a glance.
| Red Herring | |
|---|---|
| It’s a fallacy when… | It’s not a fallacy if… |
| The issues raised are only loosely connected to the question under consideration, even if they are valid issues when raised on their own. | The issue raised does not take attention away from the question under consideration. |
Source: THIS CONTENT HAS BEEN ADAPTED FROM Critical Thinking: Analysis and Evaluation of Argument.
REFERENCES
Clark, A. (2019, August 7). We’ve been trapping and sterilizing stray cats for decades. Does it work? University of Florida News. news.ufl.edu/2019/08/does-sterilizing-stray-cats-work/
Vargas, T. (2022, June 1). The danger of a politician blaming mass shootings on ‘emasculated’ men. The Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/01/emasculated-men-mass-shootings/
