Poisoning the Well

[DeistPaladin]

Over the last 12 years, there is a tactic I've noted that seems to be commonly used among both Christian apologists and Republican apologists in America that may be described as "poisoning the well". Poisoning the Well is a logical fallacy that involves attempting to present unfavorable information, whether true or false, about the opponent and therefore conclude the the opponent's argument must be therefore false. Like the ad hominem, it avoids discussing the legitimacy of the argument and focuses instead on the person.

From Nizkor's definition of "Poisoning the Well"

The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make.

Going on the offensive to smear and discredit the attacker, or "put the accuser on trial", rather than try to refute the attacker's arguments, has been a consistently used tactic by the right wing in America ever since Bush began lying us into the Iraq War. For example, when General Clark published his book "Against All Enemies", the right wing immediately bandied around the talking point of "Oh, don't listen to him, he's just trying to sell a book."

When actually forced to debate the arguments of the attacker, the right wing would usually shift the narrative away from the main points of the argument to any picayune beside-the-point side issues where the opponent might have a weakness. The objective here is to imply the critic should be summarily dismissed for any mistake, no matter how minor. For example, the conservative counter-attack against Fahrenheit 9/11 was not to deny that Bush was negligent before and during 9/11 and then afterwords lied us into the Iraq War (the main point) but rather to obsess over unrelated details like whether or not Flint MI was really Michael Moore's home town.

This is where the tactic differs from the ad hom. It seeks to discredit the critic not merely with an insult but by changing the subject to discuss some irrelevant mistake the critic made (or may have not made) and then imply there's no need to discuss the main argument since the critic has no credibility (as if the argument depended on the credibility of a single critic and not the facts).

The same tactic seems to be commonly used by apologists as well: don't defend your beliefs but rather go on the offensive against any critic. Here's how the strategy works:

1. Go over the critic's arguments.
2. Find the weakest point, no matter how beside-the-point or irrelevant to the main argument.
3. Harp on that weak point over and over. Change the subject as much as possible to focus on (obsess over) that weak point.
4. If the critic retracts or apologizes for that mistake, ignore the apology and continue harping on that point.

Example: "Why should we listen to AronRa? He couldn't even get that guy's name right!"





So what do you think? Is this tactic an example of poisoning the well?

[CliveStaples]

I'd say it's more like a red herring. You can attempt to use the distractions to poison the well--as in your example about AronRa--but that occurs after you engage in the red herring in the first place.

[Angrboda]

"It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping!"




That being said, credibility can be a legitimate issue, so highlighting facts which place someone's credibility into doubt is not always a fallacy, just as there are legitimate uses of argument from authority. It depends on the context. (And no, I'm not going to waste my time watching a youtube video when I could be painting the forum purple with ignorant prose.)

[DeistPaladin]

That being said, credibility can be a legitimate issue, so highlighting facts which place someone's credibility into doubt is not always a fallacy, just as there are legitimate uses of argument from authority. It depends on the context. (And no, I'm not going to waste my time watching a youtube video when I could be painting the forum purple with ignorant prose.)

Quite so. I should be clear on the nature of the tactic used.

It's always important to make sure your case you present is as focused and air-tight as possible, one good thing knowing about this tactic has taught me. If you make a mistake and your opponent points it out, a proverbial point for them. If the reverse happens, point for you. That's all, as you say, legit.

This is similar to the ad hoc hypothesis, correlation and causation, or even at times the slippery slope. These things might have legitimate application in debates (sometimes its worth considering that contrary evidence might be explained away by a hypothesis, that there really is causation behind correlation, or that one thing might lead to another). These things become fallacies when they are abused to defend a preconception rather than get to the truth of the matter.

The abuse I'm talking about here with the tactic involves:

1. Refusal to discuss any of the main points (this is primarily an avoidance tactic)
2. Obsession over created side issue that has nothing to do with debate (example: is the fact that AronRa got the guy's name wrong really important to the topic of Christianity). If the mistake in question can be removed without compromising the argument, focusing on it is harping.
3. Ignore any apologies or retractions (Aron in the quoted video corrected himself)
4. Summarily dismiss your opponent without addressing the argument by the spurious assumption that compromised credibility means the argument must automatically be wrong. This is the same reason why ad hominem is a fallacy (it's OK to call your opponent and idiot; it's OK to discredit your opponent as an idiot; it's not OK to ignore the arguments and just use the attacks on your opponents credibility as a substitute for addressing the argument).