Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Poisoning the well
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== Structure == Poisoning the well can take the form of an (explicit or implied) argument, and is considered by some philosophers an [[informal fallacy]].<ref name="walton"/> A poisoned-well "argument" has the following form: # Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented by another. Example: ''"Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in jail."'' # Therefore, the claims made by person A will be false.<ref>{{cite web|last=Bennett|first=Bo|title=Poisoning the Well|url=https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Poisoning-the-Well |website=Logically Fallacious |access-date=May 14, 2016}}</ref> Poisoned-well arguments are sometimes used with preemptive invocations of the [[association fallacy]]. In this pattern, an unfavorable attribute is ascribed to any future opponents, in an attempt to discourage debate. For example, ''"That's my stance on funding the public education system, and anyone who disagrees with me hates children."'' Any person who steps forward to dispute the claim will then risk applying the tag to themselves in the process. This is a [[false dilemma]]: not all future opponents necessarily have the unfavorable attribute. For example, not everyone who has a different opinion on funding the public education system necessarily hates children. A poisoned-well "argument" can also be in this form:<ref>{{cite book|doi=10.1002/9781119165811.ch40 |chapter=Poisoning the Well |title=Bad Arguments |year=2018 |last1=Ruiz |first1=Roberto |pages=196β200 |isbn=9781119165781 |s2cid=189453536 }}</ref> # Unfavorable definitions (be it true or false) that prevent disagreement (or enforce affirmative position). # Any claims without first agreeing with the above definitions are automatically dismissed. Example: ''"Boss, you heard my side of the story, and why I think Bill should be fired and not me. Now, I am sure Bill is going to come to you with some pathetic attempt to weasel out of this lie that he has created."''
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)