|
|
I used to believe in...I often hear this claim, for example : I used to believe in evolution and now I'm a creationist. Aside from the fact that everything which then follows suggests that the person doesn't know anything about the topic and is therefore lying or had the belief for the wrong reasons, it's simply irrelevant.
So what type of fallacy is this? It seems like a genetic fallacy, that you should belief/disbelieve something because of the person making the point, rather on the basis of an actual argument. Anything else or is it not a genetic fallacy? |
| asked on Thursday, Jun 07, 2018 06:22:00 PM by Bryan | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
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.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
Typically, a genetic fallacy is basing an assertion on someone or something ’s prior erroneous claim . ‘ my sister believed monster lived in the closet therefore it’s true.
“I used to believe in god” is not a genetic fallacy, but a personal statement with little logical merit. We cannot measure the statement’s veracity other than to say it is simply a statement. I do or don’t believe in god, because my parents did or did not is a genetic fallacy. |
| answered on Friday, Jun 08, 2018 12:35:22 AM by mchasewalker |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
"I used to believe in evolution and now I'm a creationist. Aside from the fact that everything which then follows suggests that the person doesn't know anything about the topic and is therefore lying or had the belief for the wrong reasons, it's simply irrelevant."
What is or isn't relevant to you is what is irrelevant. A person doesn't have to know anything about evolution to believe in it, except of course what evolution is. I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are saying. Are you saying that someone who says they used to believe in evolution but is now a creationist is ALWAYS simply saying it but it isn't true? Well, I could link numerous youtube vids of scientists who say exactly that. Are you saying they all are either lying or don't know what evolution is? That's not a very smart thing to assert. SO, everyone who believed in evolution but is now a creationist HAD TO HAVE believed evolution for the wrong reasons? I think you are babbling..............lol |
| answered on Friday, Jun 08, 2018 03:37:41 AM by skips777 |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
Not a fallacy. This is simply a case of another sharing what they did and do currently believe.
This can become a fallacy if they were to create an argument from it, such as "I used to believe in evolution, now I'm a creationist. So you should be too," this could be an appeal to authority if the person is not providing evidence for the claim but simply stating the reason for belief is because they believe. |
| answered on Friday, Jun 08, 2018 05:28:03 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD |
Comments |
|
| |