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.