How do we classify this?

[Chanakya]

Say there’s this source --- this person maybe, or maybe this thing (like religion, or like urban myths generally, like some specific website, or whatever) --- that’s very often completely wrong. And yet, when the next time a claim is made by that dodgy source, then, to reject that claim merely because that source had been found wanting at other times in respect of other claims, that would be an ad hom, isn’t it?

And yet, it’s clearly silly, it’s clearly wrong, to treat such a claim as seriously as one would a claim from a more historically reliable source. Even though it is an ad hom to distinguish between them basis the source’s past record on other claims.

So, what’s that amount to? I mean, this reasoning that I outlined above, basis which one might discount, maybe reject, some claim, does it have a name? Like ad hom has a name, like strawman has a name, like that?

 

[theprestige]

Depends on the source. Vague hypotheticals aren't much to go on.

Most claims from dodgy sources lack supporting evidence. You can reject them on those grounds, without appealing to the character of the source.

 

[I Am The Scum]

So, what’s that amount to? I mean, this reasoning that I outlined above, basis which one might discount, maybe reject, some claim, does it have a name? Like ad hom has a name, like strawman has a name, like that?

The speaker is unreliable, therefore their claim is false: Ad hominem
The speaker is unreliable, therefore their claim can be safely ignored until definitive evidence or a more reliable source comes forward: Pragmatism

 

[Nova Land]

For almost any substantive matter which comes up, evidence can be found pointing in a number of directions.

For instance, if someone is accused of a crime there will likely be evidence pointing to their guilt and evidence pointing to their innocence. There may be a lot more evidence pointing in one direction than the other, and the evidence pointing one way may be a lot better than the evidence pointing the other direction, but there almost always is evidence pointing in different directions.

Suppose, for example, that an assault or robbery or other crime occurred in public with a dozen or so people in the area who caught at least a glimpse of what happened, although none were aware in time to observe closely or to know just what it was they were observing until after police arrived and began questioning them. The police find and arrest a person several blocks away whom they think could be the culprit. If they ask the dozen or so people who at least partially saw the incident whether this is the person they saw committing the crime, some of them may think it does look like that person, some may think it doesn't, some may be uncertain. That's just one example of how in life evidence can point in more than one direction.

Evidence and proof are two very different things, and it's important to keep that in mind. Just because there's evidence to support a theory doesn't mean the theory is true, and just because there's evidence against a theory doesn't mean the theory is false. What good skeptics need to do is weigh the evidence and see which evidence to give more weight in trying to determine the truth of the matter (and which evidence to give less weight) as they try to put the pieces together and see what the truth is.

Some people have better eyesight than others, so their testimony on what they saw would generally carry more weight than someone with poorer eyesight; but some people are better at storing and remembering what they see, or at understanding what it is they are seeing, so their testimony would generally carry more weight than that of someone who pays less attention or is poorer at remembering. There are many factors which go into weighing witness testimony (and into weighing other kinds of evidence).

So, returning to the example mentioned in the opening post, a source which is very often wrong. Here, again, a good skeptic would neither automatically reject the claims made by a source which is nearly always wrong nor automatically accept the claims made by a source which is nearly always right. (Even the most careful, reasonable, and knowledgeable person can make a mistake, and even the most unreliable person can be right on occasion.) But a good skeptic would assign a much higher weight to claims made by a reliable source and much lower weight to claims made by an unreliable source. The more often the source had been inaccurate in what they were saying, the lower the weight should be given to what they say, to the point where it might carry almost no weight at all.

The good skeptic then looks at and weighs the other evidence they can find relating to the matter at hand, tries to see what picture the pieces of evidence make when some are given more weight (or colored darker, if you prefer, to go with the drawing a picture metaphor) -- and, if possible, compares the picture they think they're seeing with what other good skeptics they talk to who have also been looking at and weighing the evidence on the matter think they're seeing.

If there's a good amount of evidence available, they may come to think that the evidence shows the unreliable source is wrong again. Or, if a fair amount of other evidence supports what the unreliable source said and carries a good amount of weight, they may come to think that for once the unreliable source was right. Or, if the evidence available really doesn't weigh heavily enough either way, they may decide the matter is undetermined and they need to keep on looking for and weighing evidence until they do feel the weight of the evidence when taken together clearly leads one way or the other.

 

[novaphile]

If you ever want to be a good witness.

Write down what happened, immediately after it happened.

This has served me well in the past.

 

[Chanakya]

The speaker is unreliable, therefore their claim is false: Ad hominem
The speaker is unreliable, therefore their claim can be safely ignored until definitive evidence or a more reliable source comes forward: Pragmatism

Yep. I was wondering if that specific kind of pragmatism has a name. Like ad hom has a name.

For almost any substantive matter which comes up, evidence can be found pointing in a number of directions. (...)

Evidence and proof are two very different things, and it's important to keep that in mind. Just because there's evidence to support a theory doesn't mean the theory is true, and just because there's evidence against a theory doesn't mean the theory is false. What good skeptics need to do is weigh the evidence and see which evidence to give more weight in trying to determine the truth of the matter (and which evidence to give less weight) as they try to put the pieces together and see what the truth is. (...)

Snipped for brevity, particularly given the new format truncates quotes anyway unless you go to the trouble to click them back into whole. Liked your detailed discussion. Agreed particularly with the highlighted.

But what I was wondering is more specific. When a guy comes out and makes a claim --- or a book, or a website, or a system of thought, or, well, any kind of source at all --- then, to reject that claim outright because in the past that source had been found unreliable is obviously an ad hom. But the opposite of that, to completely ignore the past history, in terms of reliability on claims, of a source, and, for instance, to treat every claim of a habitual liar or a habitual delusional de novo as it were, that also seems misguided, fallacious. So, I was wondering if that latter kind of "fallacy" has a name, like ad hom has a name --- not that it has to have a name in order for it to be a thing.

Depends on the source. Vague hypotheticals aren't much to go on.

Most claims from dodgy sources lack supporting evidence. You can reject them on those grounds, without appealing to the character of the source.

Agreed, the best way to go evaluating any claim is to evaluate each claim on its own terms, and actually weigh the evidence before accepting it or rejecting it. But, it seems to me, that while ad hom is obviously a thing, and must be guarded against, in one's own thinking first and foremost as well as in others': but the opposite of that, which is to completely ignore the past antecedents/history of a source as far as their reliability in making claims, is also kind of fallacious. And I was wondering if that fallacy has a name --- not, like I said above, it must necessarily have a name to have a thing.

I meant that generally. Boy cries wolf, you investigate. Boy cries wolf five times just for fun, as a joke: Then, the sixth time he cries wolf, obviously it is an ad hom to imagine that sixth claim is a lie; but on the other hand, it also seems fallacious not to bring an extra pinch of salt into evaluation of that sixth claim. That specific kind of pragmatism --- as @IAmTheScum classes it, above --- I was wondering if it has a name, like ad hom has a name. Not that it must necessarily have a name in order to be a thing.

 

[Chanakya]

Actually, it occurs to me, in context of this discussion, separately from what I'd asked in the OP: Does the opposite of ad hom have a name as well? Like, the term ad hom usually has a negative connotation, in terms of rejecting the claim: but what about the same fallacy working in the opposite direction? Homme has, in the past, been found fully reliable in their claims; so that, when homme makes a sixth claim, then, if we should accept that claim directly, then that's fallacious for exactly the same reason why it is fallacious to reject a habitual liar or delusional's claims out of hand. So, that ad-hom-but-in-the-opposite-direction, does that have a name? Or is it that the term "ad hom" does duty in both directions, positive as well as negative?

 

[Norman Alexander]

Demanding well-supported evidence from any source is not an ad hominem. A source may have poorly supported evidence most of the time, but that does not necessarily mean that at any one time a specific piece of evidence is guaranteed to be poor. E.g. Infowars. Most of the time it produced abject rubbish, tosh, garbage. But occasionally, very occasionally, there was a grain of truth there. Not a useful or new grain of truth (e.g. water is wet), but nonetheless...

Really, it comes down to a source of evidence to be convincing that it is good. Some sources, such as Infowars, could generally be relied on to be exceptionally bad sources all the time. Others, such as the CDC, are generally reliable sources all the time.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Yep. I was wondering if that specific kind of pragmatism has a name. Like ad hom has a name.



Snipped for brevity, particularly given the new format truncates quotes anyway unless you go to the trouble to click them back into whole. Liked your detailed discussion. Agreed particularly with the highlighted.

But what I was wondering is more specific. When a guy comes out and makes a claim --- or a book, or a website, or a system of thought, or, well, any kind of source at all --- then, to reject that claim outright because in the past that source had been found unreliable is obviously an ad hom. But the opposite of that, to completely ignore the past history, in terms of reliability on claims, of a source, and, for instance, to treat every claim of a habitual liar or a habitual delusional de novo as it were, that also seems misguided, fallacious. So, I was wondering if that latter kind of "fallacy" has a name, like ad hom has a name --- not that it has to have a name in order for it to be a thing.



Agreed, the best way to go evaluating any claim is to evaluate each claim on its own terms, and actually weigh the evidence before accepting it or rejecting it. But, it seems to me, that while ad hom is obviously a thing, and must be guarded against, in one's own thinking first and foremost as well as in others': but the opposite of that, which is to completely ignore the past antecedents/history of a source as far as their reliability in making claims, is also kind of fallacious. And I was wondering if that fallacy has a name --- not, like I said above, it must necessarily have a name to have a thing.

I meant that generally. Boy cries wolf, you investigate. Boy cries wolf five times just for fun, as a joke: Then, the sixth time he cries wolf, obviously it is an ad hom to imagine that sixth claim is a lie; but on the other hand, it also seems fallacious not to bring an extra pinch of salt into evaluation of that sixth claim. That specific kind of pragmatism --- as @IAmTheScum classes it, above --- I was wondering if it has a name, like ad hom has a name. Not that it must necessarily have a name in order to be a thing.

Bringing a pinch of salt to the 5th cry of wolf is just skepticism, in common parlance.

Ignoring the first 5 cries of wolf is being unskeptical.

Dismissing a 5th cry is only unskeptical if it's still not analysed on its own terms. And that includes looking at why the boy was wrong in the past, but not only that.

It's only an Ad Hominem if you say, "the boy is a liar therefore he's wrong".

 

[Chanakya]

Bringing a pinch of salt to the 5th cry of wolf is just skepticism, in common parlance.

Ignoring the first 5 cries of wolf is being unskeptical.

Dismissing a 5th cry is only unskeptical if it's still not analysed on its own terms. And that includes looking at why the boy was wrong in the past, but not only that.

It's only an Ad Hominem if you say, "the boy is a liar therefore he's wrong".

Uhh, I guess we agree about that, but I'd just like to clarify two things, so I'm sure we're exactly on the same page here:

1. As far as the highlighted, it is always skeptical to bring a pinch of salt to (evaluating) the cry. What I was referring to is the extra pinch of salt that the fact of the boy's having fooled around about this in the past warrants. Does that extra pinch of salt have a name, does that in-a-way-and-to-some-extent-the-opposite-of-ad-hom pragmatism have a name? Is what I was wondering.

2. You seem, overall, to be saying, Yes, that additional pragmatism is indeed a thing, but it doesn't actually have its name. Is that right? If so, cool, that's what I was checking, if this thing has a name.

 

[Chanakya]

Demanding well-supported evidence from any source is not an ad hominem. A source may have poorly supported evidence most of the time, but that does not necessarily mean that at any one time a specific piece of evidence is guaranteed to be poor. E.g. Infowars. Most of the time it produced abject rubbish, tosh, garbage. But occasionally, very occasionally, there was a grain of truth there. Not a useful or new grain of truth (e.g. water is wet), but nonetheless...

Really, it comes down to a source of evidence to be convincing that it is good. Some sources, such as Infowars, could generally be relied on to be exceptionally bad sources all the time. Others, such as the CDC, are generally reliable sources all the time.

Sure, agreed. Just, generally being additionally skeptical of what, for instance, Infowars might say, seemed kind-of-sort-of the opposite of what the ad hom fallacy cautions us against, and yet is perfectly warranted pragmatism. So, I was wondering if that in-a-way-and-to-a-(limited)-extent-the-opposite-of-ad-hom has a name.

 

[Chanakya]

Actually, it occurs to me, in context of this discussion, separately from what I'd asked in the OP: Does the opposite of ad hom have a name as well? Like, the term ad hom usually has a negative connotation, in terms of rejecting the claim: but what about the same fallacy working in the opposite direction? Homme has, in the past, been found fully reliable in their claims; so that, when homme makes a sixth claim, then, if we should accept that claim directly, then that's fallacious for exactly the same reason why it is fallacious to reject a habitual liar or delusional's claims out of hand. So, that ad-hom-but-in-the-opposite-direction, does that have a name? Or is it that the term "ad hom" does duty in both directions, positive as well as negative?

Also, bumping this post, this question that occurred to me after, that is completely separate from the OP question.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

People who are bad sources tend to also be very bad at making any clear statements.

But if anyone does give a clear statement Bayesian Reasoning will be a good guide on how serious to take it.

 

[miatasport99]

Also, bumping this post, this question that occurred to me after, that is completely separate from the OP question.

Would it not be some kind of "appeal to authority" fallacy in the opposite case?

 

[gabeygoat]

that's what I was thinking

 

[Georg]

Say there’s this source --- this person maybe, or maybe this thing (like religion, or like urban myths generally, like some specific website, or whatever) --- that’s very often completely wrong. And yet, when the next time a claim is made by that dodgy source, then, to reject that claim merely because that source had been found wanting at other times in respect of other claims, that would be an ad hom, isn’t it?

And yet, it’s clearly silly, it’s clearly wrong, to treat such a claim as seriously as one would a claim from a more historically reliable source. Even though it is an ad hom to distinguish between them basis the source’s past record on other claims.

So, what’s that amount to? I mean, this reasoning that I outlined above, basis which one might discount, maybe reject, some claim, does it have a name? Like ad hom has a name, like strawman has a name, like that?

Poisoning the well?

 

[I Am The Scum]

Actually, it occurs to me, in context of this discussion, separately from what I'd asked in the OP: Does the opposite of ad hom have a name as well? Like, the term ad hom usually has a negative connotation, in terms of rejecting the claim: but what about the same fallacy working in the opposite direction? Homme has, in the past, been found fully reliable in their claims; so that, when homme makes a sixth claim, then, if we should accept that claim directly, then that's fallacious for exactly the same reason why it is fallacious to reject a habitual liar or delusional's claims out of hand. So, that ad-hom-but-in-the-opposite-direction, does that have a name? Or is it that the term "ad hom" does duty in both directions, positive as well as negative?

A "positive" ad hominem is still called an ad hominem.

 

[Elaedith]

Genetic fallacy.

 

[Chanakya]

People who are bad sources tend to also be very bad at making any clear statements.

But if anyone does give a clear statement Bayesian Reasoning will be a good guide on how serious to take it.

Haha, yes, true! Often enough, and probably way more often than not, people that are bad sources do tend to make vague, confused assertions.

Still, not sure how that bears on this. Because that's not always the case; and nor is the opposite of that necessarily true either.

Sure, agreed, clearly reasoning this out, Bayesian as you say, can sort this out.

...I'm going with no name, then, to the OP question?

 

[Chanakya]

A "positive" ad hominem is still called an ad hominem.

Ah, cool. Noted. I'd never seen it used that way, that is to say, never seen a positive use like that referred to as an ad hominem fallacy, hence I thought to ask.

 

[Chanakya]

Would it not be some kind of "appeal to authority" fallacy in the opposite case?

that's what I was thinking

Not ...quite? That is, an appeal to authority would probably be a subset of this, maybe? Or at least, a Venn thing with an intersecting portion?

(Needn't be an "authority" per se, after all. Boy crying wolf, for instance, in the hypothetical a few posts up?)

@IAmTheScum says ad hom works both ways, apparently. Assuming he's right ---- and I don't see why he shouldn't be, so I'm assuming that, unless someone comes out to correct him/us ---- it would seem the answer would simply be the old ad hom thing, here as well.

 

[Chanakya]

Poisoning the well?

Oh, why?

Haha, are you suggesting that the reasoning I'd presented in the OP is itself what amounts to poisoning the well, is that what you're suggesting? If that is the case, then that would mean you don't think that it's right to weigh down the evidence from a habitual liar or delusional, or someone that's otherwise wrong habitually, as compared to someone who has a clean slate, or someone that has a good record in that respect. Is that what you're saying? If so, my first impulse is to disagree; but I'm open to considering the possibility that I'm wrong about this, and discussing this further. Assuming that is what you're saying.

 

[Chanakya]

Genetic fallacy.

Boom, bingo! You've nailed it.

(I'd heard the term genetic fallacy, but I either did not ever know what it meant, or if I ever did then I'd forgotten. I had to look it up, and, yep, you've nailed it, right on the head. Genetic fallacy is what it is!)

So, the ad hom would appear to be a subset of the genetic fallacy.

@IAmTheScum ---- I don't know how to link your handle using the "@" thingy in this new format, it doesn't work either with the spaces you use in your name, nor when the spaces are left out! ---- I was saying, in light of what Elaedith says, would you like to change what you'd said? Not saying you're wrong, I don't really know myself, and I'm happy to accept it as such if you're sure about this ---- but, if ad hom works both ways, both negative and positive, then the ad hom would appear to be identical with the genetic fallacy, no? (It might well be, not saying that's not the case. Just checking that you do suggest that's so.)

 

[ahhell]

Genetic fallacy.

That, a fallacy in which arguments or information are dismissed or validated based solely on their source of origin rather than their content.

That being said, I do think it's reasonable to consider the source. If you have a source known to be dodgy, it's reasonable to look for better evidence or sources.

I think its reasonable to dismiss or ignore pretty much everything Alex Jones says even though I'm sure he's right about some things. Is that the genetic fallacy, probably but I'm still going to do it.

ETA: Never forget, you can be using a fallacy in your reasoning and still have the correct conclusion.

 

[Thermal]

Thirded or whatever on Genetic/Origin fallacy.

 

[Chanakya]

That, a fallacy in which arguments or information are dismissed or validated based solely on their source of origin rather than their content.

That being said, I do think it's reasonable to consider the source. If you have a source known to be dodgy, it's reasonable to look for better evidence or sources. I think its reasonable to dismiss or ignore pretty much everything Alex Jones says even though I'm sure he's right about some things. Is that the genetic fallacy, probably but I'm still going to do it.
ETA: Never forget, you can be using a fallacy in your reasoning and still have the correct conclusion.

Elaedith's answer was to my other question, not to my OP.

As far as the highlighted, that was what my OP was about, wondering if that reasoning has a name. I don't think there is, basis this thread. Other than generally Bayesian reasoning, simply totting up likelihoods in other words, like TGZ points out.

Agreed about your edit! Haha, that might qualify as a fallacy itself, the impression one might sometimes have that because the reasoning someone's used is fallacious, therefore their conclusion is necessarily wrong!

 

[ahhell]

I've heard it called the fallacy fallacy.

I don't think there's a name for dismissing a source because they are dodgy and looking for a better source, as TGZ and IAS say, Bayesian reasoning and pragmatism.

 

[Chanakya]

Hadn't heard that before: "fallacy fallacy"!

Looked it up on Google, just the summary on top without digging into the actual website it's from, whatever it might be, and it lists out these names: the fallacy fallacy; the (fallacious) argument from fallacy; the fallacist's fallacy; the metafallacy; the bad reasons fallacy; and the (fallacious) argument to logic.

I like the first one best, which is what you'd used: the fallacy fallacy.

 

[Georg]

Oh, why?

Haha, are you suggesting that the reasoning I'd presented in the OP is itself what amounts to poisoning the well, is that what you're suggesting? If that is the case, then that would mean you don't think that it's right to weigh down the evidence from a habitual liar or delusional, or someone that's otherwise wrong habitually, as compared to someone who has a clean slate, or someone that has a good record in that respect. Is that what you're saying? If so, my first impulse is to disagree; but I'm open to considering the possibility that I'm wrong about this, and discussing this further. Assuming that is what you're saying.

See below.
You in the OP and I Am The Scum said it is an ad hom.

The speaker is unreliable, therefore their claim is false: Ad hominem

I say it is a special form of ad hom:

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

ETA: sorry for the confusion

 

[bruto]

I would go along with well poisoning or genetic fallacy or ad hominem if you simply dismiss, ridicule or reject an opinion based on where it came from. There's a lot of overlap, and it depends a little, I think, on why an opinion is disputed and how. Probably hard to agree on where the lines are drawn, depending somewhat on your own sources for the categories.

My take on it, more or less..... If you reject someone's scientific opinion because of his religion or overall philosophy, without regard to his scientific history, I would consider it well poisoning of a classic sort (e.g. the Nazi rejection of anything Jewish). If you reject someone's scientific opinion because you believe his philosophy actively affects his findings, without regard to what those findings are this time, I'd go more for genetic fallacy (e.g. He's a something-ist, and I'm a something-else-ist, so I will ignore his work). If you reject his opinion for personal reasons, it's ad hominem (e.g. he's an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, so don't believe what he says). If actual history in the subject at hand leads you to conditional dismissal unless corroboration can be found, then I think that's just skepticism.

If, for example, a person known to have faked Bigfoot prints in the past comes forward with new Bigfoot prints and says "this time they're real," there is no fallacy in saying "prove it."

 

[Thermal]

Yup. There as a fine line to walk between justifiably doubting a source's crediblity based on its history, and tripping over to Origin or Ad Hom fallacies.

 

[MBDK]

A "positive" ad hominem is still called an ad hominem.

Not from the definitions I have read.

Example, from: https://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm (hilite mine)

The Ad Hominem Argument (also, "Personal attack," "Poisoning the well"): The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s intelligence, morals, education, professional qualifications, personal character or reputation, using a corrupted
negative argument from ethos. E.g., "That so-called judge;" or "He's so evil that you can't believe anything he says." See also "Guilt by Association." The opposite of this is the "Star Power" fallacy. Another obverse of Ad Hominem is the Token Endorsement Fallacy,

 

[Chanakya]

I would go along with well poisoning or genetic fallacy or ad hominem if you simply dismiss, ridicule or reject an opinion based on where it came from. There's a lot of overlap, and it depends a little, I think, on why an opinion is disputed and how. Probably hard to agree on where the lines are drawn, depending somewhat on your own sources for the categories.

My take on it, more or less..... If you reject someone's scientific opinion because of his religion or overall philosophy, without regard to his scientific history, I would consider it well poisoning of a classic sort (e.g. the Nazi rejection of anything Jewish). If you reject someone's scientific opinion because you believe his philosophy actively affects his findings, without regard to what those findings are this time, I'd go more for genetic fallacy (e.g. He's a something-ist, and I'm a something-else-ist, so I will ignore his work). If you reject his opinion for personal reasons, it's ad hominem (e.g. he's an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, so don't believe what he says). If actual history in the subject at hand leads you to conditional dismissal unless corroboration can be found, then I think that's just skepticism.

If, for example, a person known to have faked Bigfoot prints in the past comes forward with new Bigfoot prints and says "this time they're real," there is no fallacy in saying "prove it."

(Quoted)
The Ad Hominem Argument (also, "Personal attack," "Poisoning the well"): The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s intelligence, morals, education, professional qualifications, personal character or reputation, using a corrupted
negative argument from ethos. E.g., "That so-called judge;" or "He's so evil that you can't believe anything he says." See also "Guilt by Association." The opposite of this is the "Star Power" fallacy. Another obverse of Ad Hominem is the Token Endorsement Fallacy,

Great posts, both.

@bruto , that makes sense, how you've discussed the nuances of those three. Fits in perfectly ---- well, assuming you're fully right about how you're using this. (Not disagreeing with you, just, i mean, given @iamthescum's view that the ad hom swings both ways. Either it does, or it doesn't: and, basis this thread, I'm starting to think I was right in thinking it doesn't. It makes sense that, in that case, the genetic fallacy, which is actually the superset of which the ad hom is part, might be used for the positive part of it.

Had never heard of those two, Token Endorsement and Star Power fallacy. Cool, @MBDK , they seem exactly what we're looking for here.

----------

...Heh, this overall discussion, I'm starting to wonder, who is it who comes up with these? I don't suppose there's any board sitting there, with people with brows furrowed deep in skeptical thought, and Einsteinian hair, sitting there thinking up and approving fallacy A and fallacy B and fallacy C. Some of them seem made up --- well, they're all made up, obviously, they won't drop in ready made from the sky, but made up at random by the likes of you and I, or so some of them look like! Which is not to downplay their worth, no reason why "you and I" --- generic --- should necessarily be unable to come up with good stuff.


----------

eta: Also, this:

(Which is what my OP was actually about)

(...) If actual history in the subject at hand leads you to conditional dismissal unless corroboration can be found, then I think that's just skepticism.

If, for example, a person known to have faked Bigfoot prints in the past comes forward with new Bigfoot prints and says "this time they're real," there is no fallacy in saying "prove it."

Makes sense.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Say there’s this source --- this person maybe, or maybe this thing (like religion, or like urban myths generally, like some specific website, or whatever) --- that’s very often completely wrong. And yet, when the next time a claim is made by that dodgy source, then, to reject that claim merely because that source had been found wanting at other times in respect of other claims, that would be an ad hom, isn’t it?

And yet, it’s clearly silly, it’s clearly wrong, to treat such a claim as seriously as one would a claim from a more historically reliable source. Even though it is an ad hom to distinguish between them basis the source’s past record on other claims.

So, what’s that amount to? I mean, this reasoning that I outlined above, basis which one might discount, maybe reject, some claim, does it have a name? Like ad hom has a name, like strawman has a name, like that?

You're just usi g Bayesian reasoning to the claim. Because the claimant has a history of making dodgy claims, you are tempering your expectations accordingly.

I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[Chanakya]

You're just usi g Bayesian reasoning to the claim. Because the claimant has a history of making dodgy claims, you are tempering your expectations accordingly.

I see nothing wrong with that.

Yep, I do take that from this thread. That it's perfectly reasonable, and not a fallacy at all, to be more exacting, and to offer less benefit of the doubt, to someone that's known to be dishonest or otherwise wrong, than to someone with a clean slate, or even more so someone that's generally known to be honest and otherwise generally right.

 

[MBDK]

Yep, I do take that from this thread. That it's perfectly reasonable, and not a fallacy at all, to be more exacting, and to offer less benefit of the doubt, to someone that's known to be dishonest or otherwise wrong, than to someone with a clean slate, or even more so someone that's generally known to be honest and otherwise generally right.

There is no fallacy as long as you aren't making a final conclusion based on previous reputation alone. Of course, there is no fallacy in just ignoring certain claims, but specific, pertinent ones (to a subject of discussion, current events, etc.), still require valid counterpoint for logical dismissal.

 

[Chanakya]

There is no fallacy as long as you aren't making a final conclusion based on previous reputation alone. Of course, there is no fallacy in just ignoring certain claims, but specific, pertinent ones (to a subject of discussion, current events, etc.), still require valid counterpoint for logical dismissal.

That was, in fact, my starting point; and it’s also what emerges from this thread overall. Agreed in general, absolutely. …However, that nuance of it, that I've highlighted in your comment? Maybe that needs a bit of clarifying, given that’s specifically what we’re exploring here:

If there’s someone that you know to be generally dishonest, or deluded; or maybe dishonest, or deluded, not generally but over some specific topic: in that scenario, when they come up with some additional claim, then, where we might perhaps have extended some benefit of the doubt to someone else, at least to begin with, but with this person we tighten our standards, and effectively end up rejecting their (baldly stated, unevidenced) claim. That seems reasonable following “Bayesian reasoning”, following general skepticism --- like you say, and like others have said as well, and I agree.

But, the point is: In not considering this person’s claim, we’re in effect rejecting that claim, isn’t it? Rejecting it, as we might not have directly rejected another person’s (similarly baldly stated, unevidenced) claim. Not giving it the time of day to clearly check it out ourselves, because this boy’s cried wolf once too many times. …So that, if the interaction ends at the point, then what we’re doing is effectively, for all practical purposes, “making (the) final conclusion” of rejecting that claim.

To do which, of course, is the very definition of the ad hom. And yet, this specific instance of it is perfectly reasonable, basis “Bayesian reasoning”, and, as you say, basis general skepticism.

So that, when you say what you do about not jumping to a final conclusion, well, that kind of circles back to where I’d started out from in my OP, right? …Thoughts?

 

[MBDK]

That was, in fact, my starting point; and it’s also what emerges from this thread overall. Agreed in general, absolutely. …However, that nuance of it, that I've highlighted in your comment? Maybe that needs a bit of clarifying, given that’s specifically what we’re exploring here:

If there’s someone that you know to be generally dishonest, or deluded; or maybe dishonest, or deluded, not generally but over some specific topic: in that scenario, when they come up with some additional claim, then, where we might perhaps have extended some benefit of the doubt to someone else, at least to begin with, but with this person we tighten our standards, and effectively end up rejecting their (baldly stated, unevidenced) claim. That seems reasonable following “Bayesian reasoning”, following general skepticism --- like you say, and like others have said as well, and I agree.

But, the point is:
In not considering this person’s claim, we’re in effect rejecting that claim, isn’t it? Rejecting it, as we might not have directly rejected another person’s (similarly baldly stated, unevidenced) claim. Not giving it the time of day to clearly check it out ourselves, because this boy’s cried wolf once too many times. …So that, if the interaction ends at the point, then what we’re doing is effectively, for all practical purposes, “making (the) final conclusion” of rejecting that claim.

To do which, of course, is the very definition of the ad hom. And yet, this specific instance of it is perfectly reasonable, basis “Bayesian reasoning”, and, as you say, basis general skepticism.

So that, when you say what you do about not jumping to a final conclusion, well, that kind of circles back to where I’d started out from in my OP, right? …Thoughts?

First of all, I apologize for the time it took to reply, but I have been fairly busy this last week.

Now to elaborate on my previous post, per the hilite (mine) in your quote. Per your scenario, you are, of course, correct, but let's revisit my claim (again, hilite mine).

There is no fallacy as long as you aren't making a final conclusion based on previous reputation alone. Of course,
there is no fallacy in just ignoring certain claims, but specific, pertinent ones (to a subject of discussion, current events, etc.), still require valid counterpoint for logical dismissal.

I see that I should have been a little more descriptive in my OP in order to convey my intentions, so here goes. Ignoring is not necessarily rejecting, and what I mean in this instance is no one is obligated to examine every claim that is made, as long as such claims are not pertinent to an ongoing conversation. People ignore claims every day without being illogical in doing so. When they scan the headlines and don't read every article, they are essentially ignoring those subjects, for a variety of reasons (e.g., no subject matter knowledge, lack of available time, searching for something else, etc.) most of which do not include a prejudicial rejection, or acceptance, of whatever is claimed. Even when some claims MAY be pertinent to an ongoing conversation, it is not unreasonable to ignore some of them IF they are presented en masse, but proper reasons for this should be noted, or have been done so previously. Normally, this would be to limit the number of simultaneous topics to retain clarity and allow focus (and hopefully resolution) on one or two items at a time. Then, you should be agreeable to continue on to further topics in the original list. Naturally, certain behaviors can result in a reasonable termination of the communication(s) at any time, but that is another subject.