Contents

Talk:Genetic fallacy

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy: Logic Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic

Archives

/Archive 1

Can't we use examples that don't rely on false origins? There's no plausible evidence that wedding rings originated as symbols of ankle chains. This example is likely to confuse the reader as to the true nature of the fallacy.--IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed this example before. I think there is a consensus that this isn't a good example. And, yes, it is nonsense to say wedding rings originated as ankle chains. We need a better example. Unfortunately, I think the problem is the genetic fallacy is a fallacy.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the supposed origin story of the symbol may not be true is utterly irrelevant. The problem lies in assuming that something's origin has a necessary bearing of any kind on its current state or meaning. Any argument that depends on this is fallacious. Even in cases where the attribute in question can be said to still be present, it is not present simply because of its origin, though it may very well be present as a result of its origin. 173.68.165.114 (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]