You mean like an argument from ignorance? Maybe. An argument from ignorance is that something is true just because it hasn’t been proven false, or an argument is false just because it hasn’t been proven true.
I stand by my earler assertion, though, argument ad hominem abusive, genetic fallacy; attacking the source or genesis of the assertion, which should logically be irrelevant to the actual truth or falsity of the assertion itself. Not to say that the others aren’t correct; I think hasty generalization could also apply. I don’t think fallacies have to necessarily be mutually exclusive.
An argument back in the other direction is it’s not always inappropriate to attack the source, for example in legal proceedings where you can exhibit the unreliabilty of a persons testimony, “impeaching the witness”. Even in that context, though, the truth or falsity of the assertion is independent of the persons credibility.
If he had said it can’t be right because it comes from the Internet, that would be a fallacy. But here’s the quote: “yeah, if it’s on the internet it HAS to be true”.
Can we at least agree that that is rhetorical sarcasm? If so, we can translate it to, “if it’s on the Internet, that doesn’t make it true.”
True, but if I understand the guy he refuses to cosider the legitimacy of any information that comes from the internet at all. Like, The New York Times is a legitimate source of information, but the New York Times online is not purely because it is on the internet.
Sigh. NO, Libertarian. The semantic content is clear. The OP’s subject is rejecting information because of its source. He is saying “Because it’s on the Internet, it can’t be true.” This is indeed an ad hominem attack. Just because it’s not one of the classic attacks does not make it less so. Genetic fallacy also seems to apply.
Applying the other rhetorical fallacies to the issue of whether the internet is a good source of information, or whether the authority is reliable, does not address the issue of naming the OP subject’s behavior. This is why "hasty generalization doesn’t apply; the argument isn’t about the internet, the internet is just a source.
Pravnik, you are correct in your understanding. The individual, scary as it may seem, rejects ALL my evidence that comes from the internet. We live a few states away from each other, so I can’t exactly show him in print where he is mistaken.
I agree with you Libertarian, “if it’s on the Internet, that doesn’t make it true.”, I would have no problem if he said that, or implied it. I’m guessing it’s a little unbelievable that my friend would write off anything pertaining to the internet, so maybe a little more information is in order. He’s 24 (a few months older than me) and this is the first time he’s had access to the internet (he just recently, as in 6 months ago, got “online”). Also, he comes from a fundamental Christian family-I’m making a broad generalization that I probably shouldn’t, but I think his fundamental upbringings are some of the reason that he doesn’t question the authority of certain things. For example, this chain letter was passed to him from his father. He doesn’t question his dad on much at all.
What’s the name of the logical fallacy that says that in order for a logical proposition to be false it must be a named logical fallacy? Just wondering.
The poisoned well fallacy doesn’t mean that you conclude the entire “well” is unreliable just because some of it is. (Not that that is what you are saying). The poisoned well is when you discredit someone without considering any evidence. For instance, before the debate you insinuate that someone is a cult member, in the hopes that people will not even listen to them.
I think there are two fallacies involved here. Most likely someone has poisoned the well, and that is the reason the friend rejects all information from the internet. Note that the friend is not the one poisoning the well. He is the one who has been influenced by someone else’s well-poisoning.
The fallacy that the friend is making is the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is when you reject a claim just because of its source, and includes cases when the source is not a specific individual. Since the source is the internet, the genetic fallacy is a better description than a fallacy about personal attacks.
meatros’s friend, sarcastically: “yeah, if it’s on the internet it HAS to be true”. meatros: That’s a poisoned well (or hasty generalization) logical fallacy. meatros’s friend: You read that on the internet, didn’t you? :rolleyes:
Better go look this one up in the library, meatros.
First, we need to be clear on what the subject of the argument actually is. In this case, the argument isn’t about whatever it was you were arguing about. The argument is really about the reliability of a particular piece of evidence.
For example, this guy is not saying. The internet says Proposition X is false. Everthing on the Internet is false. Therefore, Proposition X is true.
What he is really saying is, “The evidence you offer neither tends to prove nor disprove Proposition X because your source is completely unreliable.”
This is not really an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack involves an attack on the source that is logically unrelated to the point of discussion. “I reject your medical expert’s evidence because her golf club membership was revoked,” is an ad hominem attack. “I reject your medical expert’s evidence because her board certification was revoked,” is not.
In sum, I am not entirely certain that this is a logical fallacy at all. It is merely a disagreement about the reliability of evidence. In particular applications it could be any one of a number of logical fallacies. If, for example, you are citing an article from a peer reviewed journal that you happen to have downloaded from the Internet, attacking it merely because you had got it through the Internet would be an ad hominem attack: the method of tranmission is irrelevant to the validity of the source.
To illustrate, suppose someone in the U.S. cites evidence they “heard on the radio.” By itself, this “cite” tells you nothing about how reliable this evidence is. What you really want to know is whether they heard it on Art Bell or on NPR.
Good point. I just assumed that the friend was actually rejecting the claims, rather than saying that they are neither proved or disproved. If the friend rejects the claims based on the source, then it is the genetic fallacy. If the friend doubts the source, and withholds judgement on the claim, then there is no fallacy.
I know this doesn’t answer the OP, but it might prove more practically useful.
Let’s consider a different tack:
“I’d rather believe what I want to, therefore, I will ridicule whatever source disagrees with my belief.”
Not an error in argumentative logic, but merely a conversational technique intended to justify not listening to you. If it didn’t satisfy him, he’d come up with another reason not to hear you.
He didn’t arrive at his position through logic, and you won’t persuade him from it with logic, either.
If this is all true, you can be free of the need to convince him of anything, and just enjoy your friendship.