When your doctor amputates the wrong leg...

noblenutria@gmail.com writes:

Is it technically not a fallacy because I didn't phrase it like a fallacy or it is not a fallacy by any stretch of the imagination? 

What if I phrased it like this?

Bob: Conventional medicine is the best form of medicine we have.
Larry: Are you saying that a form of medicine which has accidentally amputated the wrong leg is safe?  Alternative medicine would never amputate the wrong leg, therefore alternative medicine is the best form of medicine.

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To noblenutria@gmail.com]

I wouldn't match a named fallacy to it because I couldn't think of any I would want to justify in an argument. Again, this doesn't mean it the position isn't unreasonable or problematic. There is more to bad reasoning than just fallacies.

Are you saying that a form of medicine which has accidentally amputated the wrong leg is safe? 

My answer: Yes.

Alternative medicine would never amputate the wrong leg, therefore alternative medicine is the best form of medicine. 

Again, they are dictating an unreasonable criterion by why something is the "best form of medicine". I guess you can say begs the question .

noblenutria@gmail.com writes:

If you will humor me I have more Poisoning the Well questions.  I read in a book that it was Poisoning the Well to claim that Monsanto is evil now because they produced Agent Orange in the '70s.  I feel this is similar to saying that conventional medicine is bad because one time they amputated the wrong leg.  Another similar one is that the Police are bad now because they had slave patrols 160 years ago.

-Jacob

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To noblenutria@gmail.com]

I wouldn't want to defend that, however. poisoning the well isn't just talking crap about someone, nor is it listing evidence as to why one thinks they are bad (as in the Monsanto and police examples). It is a fallacy when the bad stuff said about them influences the perceived veracity of a claim.  Example,

Conventional medicine is responsible for chopping off patients' wrong legs. Therefore, you can't trust conventional medicine will kill that virus.

A medicines ability to kill a virus is independent of a doctor cutting off the wrong leg, so this is fallacious. This is what really distinguishes the fallacy from legitimate evidence used to support a claim. Example:

Trump did (list 10,000 horrible things here). Therefore, he is a very bad man.

noblenutria@gmail.com writes:

Thank you

I will know I have it if I can make up my own.  Is this poisoning the well...

The police descended from slave patrols, therefore you cannot trust the police to help in the case of domestic violence.  

The slave patrols bit is irrelevant to the question of whether or not police are effective in interceding in cases of domestic disturbances today.  

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To noblenutria@gmail.com]

In a technical sense, sure. Even my example of poisoning the well in the previous comment was a bit weak, because the deliberate attempt is not clear (another key feature of poisoning the well). For example, the person can authentically be arguing this is the reason for the their conclusion, in which case a non sequitur is a better fit. Remember, informal fallacies are arguments and usually on a spectrum of strong to weak. I am not an argumentative person (although my Trump-loving relatives disagree) so I tend to only call fallacy when it is on the strong side and I can confidently defend my reasoning. Otherwise, I am fine with simply articulating why it bad reasoning and not bother with a named fallacy.