Logical Fallacy #7: Poisoning the Well
Poisoning the well: "Don't listen to him. He's a jerk.'
Poisoning the well: "Don't listen to him. He's a jerk.'
Poisoning the well: "Don't listen to him. He's a jerk.'
Poisoning the Well is the name of a particular type of ad hominem fallacy. In military terms, it's like a preemptive strike. It is an attempt by the speaker to discredit an opponent before s/he has had a chance to say anything.
Examples:
"Atheists have no moral code, so you should expect them to lie to achieve their aims."
"Christians are so gullible, you really can't trust their judgement on intellectual matters."
"She has lied many times before. We really can't trust a word she says."
Character assassination or "smear campaign" are terms that apply here. Such attacks are very successful. One reason for their effectiveness is the near impossibility of responding to them. In the first and third examples, we are told to expect the person to lie, so how can we trust his defense of his own character? Presumably, although not deliberately deceptive, the "gullible Christian" has a similar problem, made worse by the fact that he doesn't even know how wrong he is.
The "poison" need not be related to the topic of discussion. A person accused of some sexual misconduct may nevertheless be a legitimate expert on global warming. But poison is poison, even when it IS related. A person may have strong and useful biblical insights but possess no divinity degree. Similarly, a PhD is not a prerequisite to doing legitimate scientific research.
In a famous case, the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association once published a study discrediting the alternative medical treatment known as "therapeutic touch." The study had been reviewed just as stringently as any other, and was eventually accepted despite the fact that the author was a grade-school-age girl. (The study is still regarded as valid.) Had JAMA rejected the paper on the basis of the age or education level of the author, it would have been guilty of poisoning the well. As it is, the study is occasionally discounted by believers in therapeutic touch on this very basis.
EDIT: The JAMA study mentioned above can be seen at http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/279/13/1005
Hmmm... yeah I think I might be guilty of this one but I definitely have watched it done by others.
It has frustrated me when people have done it when I've wanted to go ahead and bang my head against the proverbial brickwall, but I didn't really think of it as a fallacy, when the charges mentioned against someone I know to be true - such as previous plagiarism. I guess the question is whether "once wrong, always wrong" or "once bad, always bad" stands.... and I suppose that it's just a convenient way out of refuting claims if we don't spend the time on them even if they come from idiots or liars.
The example of the study on therapeutic touch is a very interesting one, by the way. Neat.
Reply to this