I was trying to answer the question on skeptics.se of whether hitler said that or not: “Who today still speaks of the massacre of the Armenians”?

I quoted a research from Ataa.org, the assembly of American Turkish association denying the fact that it is true.

Then one person came and said:

FWIW, the ATAA denies that the Armenians were the subject of a genocide.

I feel that this is fallacy, even if ATAA denied that armenians were subject of a genocide, that doesn't mean that their research is false.

What do we call this fallacy if it does exist?

  • 2
    It's a heavily politicised debate; as it would be given what it concerns; it is true that the AATA said what it said - this is merely a tautology; the question is how well does it reflect historical reality? This is truth of a different order - the historical. One expects the AATA, being the organisation that it is, to defend Turkey against such an indictment; one might expect them to have only a partisan truth. One possibility is to rely on research that comes from a more impartial source. – Mozibur Ullah Apr 22 '15 at 11:11

I want to state at the onset, I have no personal opinion on this matter, I'm simply elucidating the logic of it:

In general, the genetic fallacy is the illegitimate rejection of an argument strictly on the basis of its origin. It is considered a fallacy because a valid argument cannot be made invalid by changing its origin. Like all fallacies, it gains its force because of its close but superficial similarities to more legitimate lines of argument.

In this particular case, your interlocutor is advancing an implicit argument of [his] own. That argument (we can infer) is that because the AATA is (putatively) committed to a certain core position on an certain issue of history, they are likely to endorse other positions that align with that first one, regardless of whether or not those positions are true.

It's definitely not a strong argument --no open and shut case --but it's not necessarily fallacious. In particular, it's not the genetic fallacy due to the fact that there is actually a relationship between the premise "A believes X" and the conclusion "A claims Y" (because there does exist a relationship between X and Y). It would become a stronger argument in the case that X itself can be demonstrated to be false, because it then switches to an argument that the same factors that made A wrong on X make A more likely to be wrong on Y.


It is definitely a fallacy. Oftentimes, people will attack a conclusion because they feel that the person making the conclusion doesn't share their beliefs. The attack usually takes the form of an ad hominem. Of course the merits of the conclusion are never addressed due to deflection. Perhaps one could label the sort of fallacious response you encountered as "inverse appeal to authority. "

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.