19 Damning the Origin: "consider the source"

The opposite of regarding argument as established through an appeal to authority (see #15), is the so-called fallacy of origin, that is, rejecting an argument on account of its undesirable source. The force of an argument does not lie in the nature of the source which advances it. Plato makes this point in one of his dialogues, the Phaedrus. Here Plato depicts Socrates as illustrating an argument by inventing a little myth about ancient Egypt, whereupon Phaedrus replies by remarking that Socrates could, of course, invent tales about Egypt or any other place he chose. Socrates then answers the implied criticism by inventing still another myth.

There was a tradition in the temple of Dodona that oaks first gave prophetic utterances. The men of old, unlike in their simplicity to young philosophy, deemed that if they heard the truth even from 'oak or rock/ it was enough for them; whereas you seem to consider not whether a thing is or is not true, but who the speaker is and from what country the tale comes.

Plato, The Phaedrus

Socrates' rebuke is justified. It is true that we want to take into account the reliability of a man before adopting some view of his or before believing without other warrant something he tells us. But even a notorious liar or a man strongly motivated by self-interest can on occasion tell the truth. Of the millions of sentences uttered by Hitler, it would be remarkable if all were false -- great numbers of the sentences in Mein Kampf, for instance, are true. Our disgust with Hitler does not relieve us from considering any true statements that he made or any sound argument that he advanced. Socrates is reminding us that what we should want to know about a statement is whether or not it is true, and that it is irrelevant where the statement originates, whether in a tree or a rock -- or a myth for that matter.

EXAMPLE COMMENT
A registered lobbyist for a group of lumber interests in the Northwest urges passage of a bill which would open a portion of Olympic National Park for logging by private companies. The following comment appears in the letter column of a local paper, "This town should resist the assault on the National Park system which lobbyists for the lumber interests are trying to put across to their own economic advantage." It may be in the national interest to reduce, maintain, or extend the limits of Olympic National Park. The fact that the plan is backed by a source whose strong economic interest provides an obvious reason for anticipating bias does not justify dismissing the proposal without enquiry into its merits.
Paul declares, "Though I agree with the opinion that Prohibition didn't work well when it was tried, it does seem to me that our present system of liquor control is inadequate. I favor outlawing hard liquor entirely, while permitting the sale and consumption of beer and wine." To this Peter rejoins, "This is a strange thing for you to be saying over a whiskey sour, Paul. Perhaps you don't realize that the quip, 'Do as I say, not as I do' gets its point because of feeble arguments like yours." This example is a special sort of attack on origin (it has the classical name tu quoaue). Instead of saying in such cases, "consider the source," the speaker says, in effect, "You believe that?" as if the position involved an inconsistency. Yet it is not necessarily inconsistent for a Republican to advocate public ownership, a Southerner integration, a doctor socialized medicine, a married clergyman celibacy. If an opponent upholds the expected position, you discredit him for special pleading (see #26); if the unexpected position, you laugh at him for inconsistency. You are in the comfortable position of saying "Damned if you do, and damned if you don't."
An address at a town meeting, "I believe in looking a gift horse in the mouth. Here we have the largest landowner in town offering to donate a site for the new high school. Let's choose our own site and pay a fair price for it." The speaker refuses to look his gift horse in the mouth. He condemns the horse before he discovers anything wrong with it.
Overheard after a lecture: "I listened with interest to what Mr. Thomas has to say about the social policy for integration in the school system. But, I ask, has Mr. Thomas ever lived in Georgia? No, not in Georgia nor for that matter anywhere else in the South." This line of argument suggests that lacking a particular experience somehow disqualifies any opinions advanced by the source. It is certainly no fallacy to bring out the qualifications or extent of experience possessed by one who advances opinions, for these bear on the source's standing as an authority (see #15). But to allege lack of qualifications with the innuendo that this disposes of the testimony is to commit the fallacy of origin.