Poisoning the well: Difference between revisions
imported>QSQVyYnixUJK Italicized examples |
add ref note quoting Newman using the phrase "poisoning the wells"; link to exact page at archive.org; link to Mr. Kingsley for clarity |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{about|the informal fallacy}} | {{about|the informal fallacy}} | ||
<!-- Deleted image removed: [[File:Fox nation clinton globalwarming.jpg|Example of a "poisoned well" attack from a [[Fox News]]-affiliated website. [https://web.archive.org/web/20110924043145/http://nation.foxnews.com/bill-clinton/2011/09/20/impeached-president-says-global-warming-deniers-embarrass-america]|thumb|right]] --> | <!-- Deleted image removed: [[File:Fox nation clinton globalwarming.jpg|Example of a "poisoned well" attack from a [[Fox News]]-affiliated website. [https://web.archive.org/web/20110924043145/http://nation.foxnews.com/bill-clinton/2011/09/20/impeached-president-says-global-warming-deniers-embarrass-america]|thumb|right]] --> | ||
'''Poisoning the well''' (or attempting to '''poison the well''') is a type of [[informal fallacy]] where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an [[audience]], with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of ''[[ad hominem|argumentum ad hominem]]'', and the term was first used in this sense by [[John Henry Newman]] in his work ''[[Apologia Pro Vita Sua]]'' (1864).<ref name="walton">{{cite book |last=Walton |first=Douglas N. |author-link=Douglas N. Walton |date=1987 |title=Informal Fallacies: Towards a Theory of Argument Criticisms |series=Pragmatics & beyond companion series |volume=4 |location=Amsterdam; Philadelphia |publisher=[[John Benjamins Publishing]] |page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=BGwTc1DhylQC&pg=PA218 218] |isbn=1556190107 |oclc=14586031 }} See also: {{cite web |url=http://www.newmanreader.org/works/apologia65/preface.html |title=Newman Reader – Apologia (1865) – Preface |website=newmanreader.org}}</ref> | '''Poisoning the well''' (or attempting to '''poison the well''') is a type of [[informal fallacy]] where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an [[audience]], with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of ''[[ad hominem|argumentum ad hominem]]'', and the term was first used in this sense by [[John Henry Newman]] in his work ''[[Apologia Pro Vita Sua]]'' (1864).<ref name="walton">{{cite book |last=Walton |first=Douglas N. |author-link=Douglas N. Walton |date=1987 |title=Informal Fallacies: Towards a Theory of Argument Criticisms |series=Pragmatics & beyond companion series |volume=4 |location=Amsterdam; Philadelphia |publisher=[[John Benjamins Publishing]] |page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=BGwTc1DhylQC&pg=PA218 218] |isbn=1556190107 |oclc=14586031 }} See also: {{cite web |url=http://www.newmanreader.org/works/apologia65/preface.html |title=Newman Reader – Apologia (1865) – Preface |website=newmanreader.org}}</ref><ref>Newman uses the phrase "poisoning the wells":{{Blockquote | ||
|text=... my present subject is [[Charles Kingsley|Mr. Kingsley]]; what I insist upon here, now that I am bringing this portion of my discussion to a close, is this unmanly attempt of his, in his concluding pages, to cut the ground from under my feet;—to poison by anticipation the public mind against me, John Henry Newman, and to infuse into the imaginations of my readers, suspicion and mistrust of everything that I may say in reply to him. This I call ''poisoning the wells''.}} (''[[Apologia Pro Vita Sua]]'', [https://archive.org/details/a676961900newmuoft/page/n31/mode/2up?q=%22poisoning+the+wells%22 page 22]) | |||
</ref> | |||
== Structure == | == Structure == | ||
| Line 11: | Line 13: | ||
# 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> | # 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. | 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,<ref>{{cite web|title=Poisoning the Well|url=https://fallacycheck.com/fallacy/poisoning%20the%20well |website=FallacyCheck |access-date=October 7, 2025}}</ref> 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=196–200 |isbn=9781119165781 |s2cid=189453536 }}</ref> | 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=196–200 |isbn=9781119165781 |s2cid=189453536 }}</ref> | ||
Latest revision as of 21:30, 8 November 2025
Template:Short description Script error: No such module "about". Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used in this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).[1][2]
Structure
Poisoning the well can take the form of an (explicit or implied) argument, and is considered by some philosophers an informal fallacy.[1]
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.[3]
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,[4] 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:[5]
- 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."
See also
Script error: No such module "Portal". Template:Div col
- Appeal to ridicule
- Black propaganda
- Dog whistle (politics)
- Framing (social sciences)
- Fruit of the poisonous tree
- Guilt by association
- Procatalepsis
References
- ↑ a b Script error: No such module "citation/CS1". See also: Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ Newman uses the phrase "poisoning the wells":<templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters". (Apologia Pro Vita Sua, page 22)... my present subject is Mr. Kingsley; what I insist upon here, now that I am bringing this portion of my discussion to a close, is this unmanly attempt of his, in his concluding pages, to cut the ground from under my feet;—to poison by anticipation the public mind against me, John Henry Newman, and to infuse into the imaginations of my readers, suspicion and mistrust of everything that I may say in reply to him. This I call poisoning the wells.
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".