History Main / GeneticFallacy

* The UrExample is perhaps Dr. Peter Duesberg. An oncologist at UC Berkeley, he became best known for claiming starting in 1987 that HIV did not cause AIDS, but that it was the result of recreational and/or antiretroviral drug use, with HIV being only a "harmless" passenger virus. Outrage predictably followed, and Duesberg quickly fell from grace. Worse, this view had a major influence on South African President Thabo Mbeki, who failed to provide antiretroviral drugs to AIDS victims (Duesberg claimed such drugs in fact ''caused'' AIDS rather than treating it), resulting in hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. However... Duesberg had discovered a gene that helps cause cancer in 1970, which he continued to conduct research on in the intervening years, including when he was involved with the AIDS controversy. As he was so ostracized and discredited, most of his research was not even read. [[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-pariahs-have-good-ideas Ironically, it has potential to save millions of more lives than the deaths his AIDS denialism contributed to.]] He demonstrates both sides of the fallacy, as many people believed his AIDS denialist theory due to his scientific credentials, while conversely other scientists did not read his work due to that same theory.

The ur-example is perhaps Dr. Peter Duesberg. An oncologist at UC Berkeley, he became best known for claiming starting in 1987 that HIV did not cause AIDS, but that it was the result of recreational and or/antiretroviral drug use, with HIV being only a "harmless" passenger virus. Outrage predictably followed, and Duesberg quickly fell from grace. Worse, this view had a major influence on South African President Thabo Mbeki, who failed to provide antiretroviral drugs to AIDS victims (Duesberg claimed such drugs in fact ''caused'' AIDS rather than treating it), resulting in hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. However... Duesberg had discovered a gene that helps cause cancer in 1970, which he continued to conduct research on in the intervening years, including when he was involved with the AIDS controversy. As he was so ostracized and discredited, most of his research was not even read. [[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-pariahs-have-good-ideas Ironically, it has potential to save millions of more lives than the deaths his AIDS denialism contributed to.]] He demonstrates both sides of the fallacy, as many people believed his AIDS denialist theory due to his scientific credentials, while conversely other scientists did not read his work due to that same theory.

* ''Film/BackToTheFuturePartIII'' offers two examples of this back to back. Marty and Doc are examining a broken part that was made in Japan. Doc, from the 1950's, commits the first genetic fallacy. He says something like, "No wonder it broke; it was made in Japan." Marty, from the 1980's, counters that all the best stuff comes from Japan. Both are reflecting the views of their respective eras. Doc is obviously committing this fallacy, while Marty flirts with it by implying that the part must be good because it came from Japan.

The ur-example is perhaps Dr. Peter Duesberg. An oncologist at UC Berkeley, he became best known for claiming starting in 1987 that HIV did not cause AIDS, but that it was the result of recreational and or/antiretroviral drug use, with HIV being only a "harmless" passenger virus. Outrage predictably followed, and Duesberg quickly fell from grace. Worse, this view had a major influence on South African President Thabo Mbeki, who failed to provide antiretroviral drugs to AIDS victims (Duesberg claimed such drugs in fact ''caused'' AIDS rather than treating it), resulting in hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. However... Duesberg had discovered a gene that helps cause cancer in 1970, which he continued to conduct research on in the intervening years, including when he was involved with the AIDS controversy. As he was so ostracized and discredited, most of his research was not even read. [[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-pariahs-have-good-ideas Ironically, it has potential to save millions of more lives than the deaths his AIDS denialism contributed to]]. He demonstrates both sides of the fallacy, as many people believed his AIDS denialist theory due to his scientific credentials, while conversely other scientists did not read his work due to that same theory.

* BackToTheFuture (Part III) offers two examples of this back to back. Marty and Doc are examining a broken part that was made in Japan. Doc, from the 1950's, commits the first genetic fallacy. He says something like, "No wonder it broke; it was made in Japan." Marty, from the 1980's, counters that all the best stuff comes from Japan. Both are reflecting the views of their respective eras. Doc is obviously committing this fallacy, while Marty flirts with it by implying that the part must be good because it came from Japan.

* BackToTheFuture offers two examples of this back to back. Marty and Doc are examining a broken part that was made in Japan. Doc, from the 1950's, commits the first genetic fallacy. He says something like, "No wonder it broke; it was made in Japan." Marty, from the 1980's, counters that all the best stuff comes from Japan. Both are reflecting the views of their respective eras. Doc is obviously committing this fallacy, while Marty flirts with it by implying that the part must be good because it came from Japan.

* StephenColbert uses quite a few of these. For example, in his June 14, 2012 show, he pointed out that a medication was created by adapting an enzyme used by gangrene-causing (''Clostridium'' spp.) bacteria to tear apart tissues. Of course, this is intentional as he is a comedian.

* When evidence or data must be ignored because it was acquired through illegal or immoral methods. This is the classic "fruit of the poisoned tree." However, this is a legal or scientific standard regarding what evidence can be admitted; it has nothing to do with its truth or falsity. Indeed, the evidence can be completely true but illegally or unethically obtained and thus unusable. The law takes this a good bit more seriously than science; the law is concerned primarily with justice, and an injustice committed in the means by which evidence is discovered may mar any attempt to achieve justice at trial. In science, the paramount virtue is truth, and so evidence acquired unethically or immorally will be accepted so long as it had sufficient controls to guarantee its reliability, but the experiment will not be repeated. The greatest examples are probably the research and significant advances based on Nazi experiments into hypothermia conducted on Holocaust victims, the Japanese experiments by Unit 731 into the effects of biological and chemical weapons, and the Tuskegee Experiment conducted in the United States on black men concerning the long-term effects of untreated syphilis.

* When evidence or data must be ignored because it was acquired through illegal or immoral methods. This is the classic "fruit of the poisoned tree." However, this is a legal or scientific standard regarding what evidence can be admitted; it has nothing to do with its truth or falsity. Indeed, the evidence can be completely true but illegally or unethically obtained and thus unusable.

* When evidence or data must be ignored because it was acquired through illegal or immoral methods. This is the classic "fruit of the poisoned tree." However, this is a legal standard regarding what evidence can be admitted; it has nothing to do with its truth or falsity. Indeed, the evidence can be completely true but illegally obtained and thus unusable.

* When a factual claim is rejected because the source of the claim is known to be unreliable. A man who suffers from frequent hallucinations could not be relied upon to accurately report observations of the physical world, for example. Rejecting the claim because it was made by a delusional man would be a Genetic Fallacy, as the man may not have been hallucinating when he made the observation, or even if he did hallucinate, the claim may still be true. But simply saying that the hallucinating man cannot offer useful testimony one way or the other is not this fallacy.

The ur-example is perhaps Dr. Peter Duesberg. An oncologist at UC Berkeley, he became best known for claiming starting in 1987 that HIV did not cause AIDS, but that it was the result of recreational and or/antiretroviral drug use, with HIV being only a "harmless" passenger virus. Outrage predictably followed, and Duesberg quickly fell from grace. Worse, this view had a major influence on South African President Thabo Mbeki, who failed to provide antiretroviral drugs to AIDS victims (Duesberg claimed such drugs in fact ''caused'' AIDS rather than treating it), resulting in hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. However...Duesberg had discovered a gene that helps cause cancer in 1970, which he continued to conduct research on in the intervening years, including when he was involved with the AIDS controversy. As he was so ostracized and discredited, most of his research was not even read. [[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-pariahs-have-good-ideas Ironically, it has potential to save millions of more lives than the deaths his AIDS denialism contributed to]]. He demonstrates both sides of the fallacy, as many people believed his AIDS denialist theory due to his scientific credentials, while conversely other scientists did not read his work due to that same theory.

* When evidence or data must be ignored because it was acquired through illegal or immoral methods. This is the classic "fruit of the poisoned tree." However, this is a legal standard regarding what evidence can be admitted; it has nothing to do with its truth of falsity. Indeed, the evidence can be completely true but illegally obtained and thus unusable.

* When evidence or data must be ignored because it was acquired through illegal or immoral methods. This is the classic "fruit of the poisoned tree." However, this is a legal standard regarding what evidence can be admitted, it has nothing to do with it's truth of falsity. Indeed, the evidence can be completely true but illegally obtained and thus unusable.

The ur-example is perhaps Dr. Peter Duesberg. An oncologist at UC Berkeley, he became best known for claiming in 1987 that HIV did not cause AIDS, but that it was the result of recreational and or/antiretroviral drug use, with HIV being only a "harmless" passenger virus. Outrage predictably followed, and Duesberg quickly fell from grace. Worse, this view had a major influence on South African President Thabo Mbeki, who failed to provide antiretroviral drugs to AIDS victims (Duesberg claimed such drugs in fact caused AIDS rather than treating it), resulting in hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. However...Duesberg had discovered a gene that helps cause cancer in 1970, which he continued to conduct research on in the intervening years, including when he was involved with the AIDS controversy. As he was so ostracized and discredited, most of his research was not even read. [[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-pariahs-have-good-ideas Ironically, it has potential to save millions of more lives than the deaths his AIDS denialism contributed to]]. He demonstrates both sides of the fallacy, as many people believed his AIDS denialist theory due to his scientific credentials, while conversely other scientists did not read his work due to that same theory.

* When evidence or data must be ignored because it was acquired through illegal or immoral methods. This is the classic "fruit of the poisoned tree." However, this is a legal standard regarding what evidence can be admitted, it has nothing to do with it's truth of falsity. Indeed, the evidence can be completely true but illegally obtained and thus unusable.

The ur-example is perhaps Dr. Peter Duesberg. An oncologist at UC Berkeley, he became best known for claiming in 1987 that HIV did not cause AIDS, but that it was the result of recreational and or/antiretroviral drug use, with HIV being only a "harmless" passenger virus. Outrage predictably followed, and Duesberg quickly fell from grace. Worse, this view had a major influence on South African President Thabo Mbeki, who failed to provide antiretroviral drugs to AIDS victims (Duesberg claimed such drugs in fact caused AIDS rather than treating it), resulting in hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. However...Duesberg had discovered a gene that helps cause cancer in 1970, which he continued to conduct research on in the intervening years, including when he was involved with the AIDS controversy. As he was so ostracized and discredited, most of his research was not even read. [[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-pariahs-have-good-ideas Ironically, it has potential to save millions of more lives than the deaths his AIDS denialism contributed to]]. He demonstrates both sides of the fallacy, as many people believed his AIDS denialist theory due to his scientific credentials, while conversely other scientists did not read his work due to that very theory.

* When evidence or data must be ignored because it was acquired through illegal or immoral methods. This is the classic "fruit of the poisoned tree." However, this is a legal standard regarding what evidence can be admitted, it has nothing to do with it's truth of falsity. Indeed, the evidence can be completely true but illegally obtained and thus unusable.

* When evidence or data must be ignored because it was acquired through illegal or immoral methods. This is the classic "fruit of the poisoned tree."

The ur-example is perhaps Dr. Peter Duesberg. An oncologist at UC Berkeley, he became best known for claiming in 1987 that HIV did not cause AIDS, but that it was the result of recreational and or/antiretroviral drug use, with HIV being only a "harmless" passenger virus. Outrage predictably followed, and Duesberg quickly fell from grace. Worse, this view had a major influence on South African President Thabo Mbeki, who failed to provide antiretroviral drugs to AIDS victims (Duesberg claimed such drugs in fact caused AIDS rather than treating it), resulting in hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. However...Duesberg had discovered a gene that helps cause cancer in 1970, which he continued to conduct research on in the intervening years, including when he was involved with the AIDS controversy. As he was so ostracized and discredited, most of his research was not even read. [[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-pariahs-have-good-ideas Ironically, it has potential to save millions of more lives than those the deaths his AIDS denialism contributed to]]. He demonstrates both sides of the fallacy, as many people believed his AIDS denialist theory due to his scientific credentials, while conversely other scientists did not read his work due to that very theory.

The ur-example is perhaps Dr. Peter Duesberg. An oncologist at UC Berkeley, he became best known for claiming in 1987 that HIV did not cause AIDS, but that it was the result of recreational and or/antiretroviral drug use, with HIV being only a "harmless" passenger virus. Outrage predictably followed, and Duesberg quickly fell from grace. Worse, this view had a major influence on South African President Thabo Mbeki, who failed to provide antiretroviral drugs to AIDS victims (Duesberg claimed such drugs in fact caused AIDS rather than treating it), resulting in hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. However...Duesberg had discovered a gene that helps cause cancer in 1970, which he continued to conduct research on in the intervening years, including when he was involved with the AIDS controversy. As he was so ostracized and discredited, most of his research was not even read. [[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-pariahs-have-good-ideas Ironically, it has potential to save millions of more lives than those the deaths his AIDS denialism have contributed to]]. He demonstrates both sides of the fallacy, as many people believed his AIDS denialist theory due to his scientific credentials, while conversely other scientists did not read his work due to that very theory.

* When a factual claim is rejected because the source of the claim is known to be unreliable. A man who suffers from frequent hallucinations could not be relied upon to accurately report observations of the physical world, for example. Rejecting the claim because it was made by a delusional man would be a Genetic Fallacy, as the man may not have been hallucinating when he made the observation, or even if he did hallucinate, the claim may still be true.

!! '''[[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Genetic_fallacy Genetic Fallacy]]

The ur-example is perhaps Dr. Peter Duesberg. An oncologist at UC Berkeley, he became best known for claiming in 1987 that HIV did not cause AIDS, but that it was the result of recreational and or/antiretroviral drug use, with HIV being only a "harmless" passenger virus. Outrage predictably followed, and Duesberg quickly fell from grace. Worse, this view had a major influence on South African President Thabo Mbeki, who failed to provide antiretroviral drugs to AIDS victims (Duesberg claimed such drugs in fact caused AIDS rather than treating it), resulting in hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. However...Duesberg had discovered a gene that helps cause cancer in 1970, which he continued to conduct research on in the intervening years, including when he was involved with the AIDS controversy. As he was so ostracized and discredited, most of his research was not even read. [[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-pariahs-have-good-ideas Ironically, it has potential to save millions of more lives than those the deaths his AIDS denialism have contributed to]].

The ur-example is perhaps Dr. Peter Duesberg, an oncologist at UC Berkeley, he became best known for claiming in 1987 that HIV did not cause AIDS, but that it was the result of recreational and or/antiretroviral drug use, with HIV being only a "harmless" passenger virus. Outrage predictably followed, and Duesberg quickly fell from grace. Worse, this view had a major influence on South African President Thabo Mbeki, who failed to provide antiretroviral drugs to AIDS victims, resulting in hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. However...Duesberg had discovered a gene that helps cause cancer in 1970, which he continued to conduct research on in the intervening years, including when he was involved the AIDS controversy. As he was so ostracized and discredited, most of his research was not even read. [[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-pariahs-have-good-ideas Ironically, it has potential to save millions of more lives than those the deaths his AIDS denialism (may) have contributed to]].

The ur-example is perhaps Dr. Peter Duesberg, an oncologist at UC Berkeley, he became best known for claiming in 1987 that HIV did not cause AIDS, but that it was the result of recreational and or/antiretroviral drug use, with HIV being only a "harmless" passenger virus. Outrage predictably followed, and Duesberg quickly fell from grace. Worse, this view had a major influence on South African President Thabo Mbeki, who failed to provide antiretroviral drugs to AIDS victims, resulting in hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. However...Duesberg had discovered a gene that helps cause cancer in 1970, which he continued to conduct research on in the intervening years, including when he was involved the AIDS controversy. As he was so ostracized and discredited, most of his research was not even read. [[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-pariahs-have-good-ideas Ironically, it has potential to save millions of more lives than those his AIDS denialism (may) have contributed to dying]].

The ur-example is perhaps Dr. Peter Duesberg, an oncologist at UC Berkeley, he became best known for claiming in 1987 that HIV did not cause AIDS, but that it was the result of recreational and or/antiretroviral drug use, with HIV being only a "harmless" passenger virus. Outrage predictably followed, and Duesberg quickly fell from grace. Worse, this view had a major influence on South African President Thabo Mbeki, who failed to provide antiretroviral drugs to AIDS victims, resulting in hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. However...Duesberg had discovered a gene that helps cause cancer in 1970, which he continued to conduct research on in the intervening years, including when he was involved the AIDS controversy. As he was so ostracized and discredited, most of his research was not even read. [[Ironically, it has potential to save millions of more lives than those his AIDS denialism (may) have contributed to dying http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-pariahs-have-good-ideas]].