Question

...
Alexander

Is attempting to discredit something by invoking it’s age a fallacy?

Many times when I have cited 20th anthropological works in debates regarding racial typology others have tried to dismiss them by claiming that they are “outdated”. Does this qualify as an ad hominem, or something else?

asked on Wednesday, Sep 15, 2021 01:42:38 PM by Alexander

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments
...
0
Shawn writes:

The typological model in anthropology for categorizing people by race is now thoroughly discredited is a statement of fact. But as Bo said, simply calling something outdated is not an argument. It may be the beginning of an argument, like saying "position X is outdated" and then proceeding to demonstrate with evidence why this is so. But left alone it is not an argument at all but more like an ad hominem.  It almost appears like they are saying you are outdated.  

posted on Friday, Sep 17, 2021 08:51:06 AM
...
0
Alexander writes:
[To Shawn]

“Anti-racist PC agendas and the American Anthropological Association's recent confirmation of the unity of the human species have led to the belief that race is a socio-political invention that promotes racism. An ironic accusation since the denial of the science behind race is what's politically motivated. Forensic anthropologist and professor of anthropology George W. Gill, whose assessments are supported by modern genetics, explains.“

http://racialreality.altervista.org/race.html

[ login to reply ] posted on Thursday, Sep 23, 2021 07:23:15 PM
...
0
Shawn writes:
[To Alexander]

There is only one race -- the human race -- and it comes in all shapes, sizes and colours.  Yes, there are those who have a vested interest in promoting  "race" and "race difference" but their agenda is quite evident. But this is not the forum to discuss these matters. 

[ login to reply ] posted on Thursday, Sep 23, 2021 08:11:49 PM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
2

It depends. "They are outdated" is a claim. We need a reason to see if this is fallacious or not. They may very well be outdated and a rational presentation of evidence to support that would justify that claim. However, "They are outdated because they are old" is not just a bad reason to claim writings are "outdated" but could seen as a non sequitur as it does not follow that just because a writing is old, it is therefore outdated.
answered on Thursday, Sep 16, 2021 01:18:13 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
1
account no longer exists writes:

I'm both old AND outdated.

posted on Thursday, Sep 16, 2021 05:03:45 PM