reply to post by stevegmu
Again, you need to refer to my previous post because you're on loop playback and repeating the same fallacious venom you usually do.
Here you go buddy, the following will explain your actions.
Description of Poisoning the Well
This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false)
about the person. This "argument" has the following form:
Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. 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. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked
at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that
this sort of "reasoning" is quite poor.
Description of Ignoring a Common Cause
This fallacy has the following general structure:
A and B are regularly connected (but no third, common cause is looked for). Therefore A is the cause of B.
This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that one thing causes another simply because they are regularly associated. More formally, this fallacy
is committed when it is concluded that A is the cause of B simply because A and B are regularly connected. Further, the causal conclusion is drawn
without considering the possibility that a third factor might be the cause of both A and B.
In many cases, the fallacy is quite evident. For example, if a person claimed that a person's sneezing was caused by her watery eyes and he simply
ignored the fact that the woman was standing in a hay field, he would have fallen prey to the fallacy of ignoring a common cause. In this case, it
would be reasonable to conclude that the woman's sneezing and watering eyes was caused by an allergic reaction of some kind. In other cases, it is
not as evident that the fallacy is being comitted. For example, a doctor might find a large amount of bacteria in one of her patients and conclude
that the bacteria are the cause of the patient's illness. However, it might turn out that the bacteria are actually harmless and that a virus is
weakening the person, Thus, the viruses would be the actual cause of the illness and growth of the bacteria (the viruses would weaken the ability of
the person's body to resist the growth of the bacteria).
As noted in the discussion of other causal fallacies, causality is a rather difficult matter. However, it is possible to avoid this fallacy by taking
due care. In the case of Ignoring a Common Cause, the key to avoiding this fallacy is to be careful to check for other factors that might be the
actual cause of both the suspected cause and the suspected effect. If a person fails to check for the possibility of a common cause, then they will
commit this fallacy. Thus, it is always a good idea to always ask "could there be a third factor that is actually causing both A and B?"
[edit on 17-9-2009 by EMPIRE]