Examine fallacies that judge claims based on their origin, associations, or the characteristics of those who hold them, rather than on the claims' actual merits. These fallacies often involve dismissing or accepting ideas for irrelevant historical or social reasons.
Judging something as true or false, good or bad, based solely on its origin, source, or history, rather than on its current merit or evidence.
Arguing that a claim or person is discredited (or validated) based on a connection or association with another discredited (or validated) person, group, or idea, without showing the association is relevant.
Dismissing ideas, beliefs, or practices from the past as necessarily inferior, wrong, or outdated simply because they are old, without engaging with their actual content or considering that they might still be valid.
Arguing that because a claim is being ridiculed, rejected by mainstream experts, or opposed by authorities, it must therefore be true, by analogy to historical cases where mocked ideas (like Galileo's) turned out correct.
Assuming that because someone has achieved extraordinary expertise or recognition in one field (such as winning a Nobel Prize), their opinions in unrelated fields carry special weight or authority.
Attempting to discredit a position by associating it with Hitler, the Nazis, or other universally reviled figures or groups, without showing that the association is relevant to the position's validity.
Attempting to support a conclusion by evoking pity, sympathy, or compassion rather than providing relevant evidence or logical reasoning. The fallacy substitutes emotional manipulation for substantive argumentation.
Using mystery, obscurity, ritual, or esoteric language to make a claim appear more profound, authoritative, or convincing than the evidence warrants. The fallacy substitutes mystique and incomprehensibility for substantive explanation or evidence.
Supporting a claim by citing an authority who lacks relevant expertise in the specific domain, or by citing expert opinion outside the expert's area of competence. The fallacy assumes that expertise in one field transfers to all fields, or that fame and general intelligence substitute for domain-specific knowledge.
A self-reinforcing pattern where positive feelings about one aspect of something lead to increasingly positive evaluations of all other aspects, creating a cascading halo effect that becomes immune to contradictory evidence. Each positive association strengthens the overall positive affect, which in turn makes it harder to perceive or acknowledge any flaws.
In a categorical syllogism, deriving an affirmative (positive) conclusion from one or more negative premises. This violates the formal rules of valid syllogistic reasoning because negative premises indicate exclusion, which cannot establish positive membership relationships.
Asserting that because one option in an 'or' statement is true, the other option(s) must be false, when the disjunction is not exclusive. The fallacy treats an inclusive 'or' (one or both) as if it were an exclusive 'or' (one but not both).