Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua.[1]
The origin of the term lies in the ancient practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army in order to diminish the invading army's strength. In general usage, poisoning the well is the provision of any information that may produce a biased result. For example, if a woman tells her friend, "I think I might buy this beautiful dress", then asks how it looks, she has "poisoned the well", as her previous comment could affect her friend's response.
An even simpler example of poisoning the well is by tautology and definition, or circular reasoning. This is similar to equivocation, where the use of words communicate a confusing meaning (often called a subtle lie). For example, if one starts an argument with "Everything I say is correct, no matter what you say", the well is poisoned and nothing a person says (be it true or false) will matter by the initiator's definition.
Contents |
Structure
A poisoned-well "argument" has the following form:
- 1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A (the target) is presented by another. ("Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in jail.")
- 2. Any claims person A then makes will be regarded as false, or taken less seriously.
-
-
- A subcategory of this form is the application of an unfavorable attribute to any future opponents, in an attempt to discourage debate. ("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 apply the tag to him/herself in the process.
-
A poisoned-well "argument" can also be in this form:
- 1. Unfavorable definitions (be it true or false) which prevent disagreement (or enforce affirmative position)
- 2. Any claims without first agreeing with above definitions are automatically dismissed.
See also
References
External links
 |
This philosophy-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
