Should attacking source be a "fallacy"?

Attacking a source used for an argument is considered fallacious. I think this needs to be rethought.

Suppose there's a periodical called "Liars Weekly", where the stated goal is to lie about any topic. If someone posts a thread citing "Liars Weekly", why isn't attacking the source a valid point of contention?

I agree that it's not valid to simply attack the source and nothing else. If Liars Weekly happens to tell the truth once, their previous history doesn't invalidate the argument. So I understand why attacking a source is fallacious; but that doesn't mean there aren't valid reasons to attack a source.

Is someone presents a legitimate argument against a source, be it known or inherent bias, a history of fictitious, slanderous or propagandist claims, then it *can* be part of a valid point against arguments made using the source.

Attacking a source, by itself, may not be a valid argument. But if an intelligent and logical point can be made as to why a source is not trustworthy, then that can logically lead to why arguments drawn from that source aren't trustworthy.

Attacking a source shouldn't be considered fallacious if combined with logical points against the argument drawn from the source. Right?

@vivify said
Attacking a source used for an argument is considered fallacious. I think this needs to be rethought.

Suppose there's a periodical called "Liars Weekly", where the stated goal is to lie about any topic. If someone posts a thread citing "Liars Weekly", why isn't attacking the source a valid point of contention?

I agree that it's not valid to simply attack the source ...[text shortened]... dered fallacious if combined with logical points against the argument drawn from the source. Right?

@vivify said
Attacking a source used for an argument is considered fallacious. I think this needs to be rethought.

Suppose there's a periodical called "Liars Weekly", where the stated goal is to lie about any topic. If someone posts a thread citing "Liars Weekly", why isn't attacking the source a valid point of contention?

I agree that it's not valid to simply attack the source ...[text shortened]... dered fallacious if combined with logical points against the argument drawn from the source. Right?

@jimm619 said
I disagree...If a story is legitimate it will
be carried by the 'reputable' sources.
If a source is unreliable once, to me, it
is ALWAYS unreliable. Like the old saying,
'Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.'
Sure, but it's wrong hundreds of times a day
Why would anyone use an unreliable
source to advance a valid argument?

@vivify said
Attacking a source used for an argument is considered fallacious. I think this needs to be rethought.

Suppose there's a periodical called "Liars Weekly", where the stated goal is to lie about any topic. If someone posts a thread citing "Liars Weekly", why isn't attacking the source a valid point of contention?

I agree that it's not valid to simply attack the source ...[text shortened]... dered fallacious if combined with logical points against the argument drawn from the source. Right?

While we're here, let's look at the appeal to authority fallacy:

https://www.thoughtco.com/logical-fallacies-appeal-to-authority-250336

"Person X is an authority on Y, therefore his statement on Y is true". That is a fallacious argument. However, this article points out there legitimate appeals to authority. Those include the following conditions:

1) The authority is a legitimate expert in their field, e.g. a licensed medical doctor.
2) The authority is sticking to their field of expertise, meaning they're not neurosurgeons speaking on virology.
3) Other experts in their field also agree with their assessment. So if person X is alone in their assessments or significantly outnumbered by other experts who disagree with them, person X is not a legitimate appeal to authority.

Point number three is done too often on this forum. A poster will cite ONE study as evidence of something, despite a significantly larger number of experts coming to the opposite conclusion.

The ad hominem fallacy.

This typically refers to something like "Person X is a communist and therefore shouldn't be trusted".

People make the mistake of thinking *any* attack at a person's character equates to an ad hom. Not quite. Consider the following statement:

"Person X has been caught lying multiple times about issue Y, so his statements about Y aren't trustworthy".

The above is an attack at the person rather than their argument, but the points about the person X's character directly relate to their statements about topic Y.

"Person X is a known conspiracy theorist who uses debunked arguments drawn from dubious sources."---That wouldn't necessarily be a fallacious argument, if the statement is true.

@jimm619 said
I disagree...If a story is legitimate it will
be carried by the 'reputable' sources.
If a source is unreliable once, to me, it
is ALWAYS unreliable. Like the old saying,
'Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.'
Sure, but it's wrong hundreds of times a day
Why would anyone use an unreliable
source to advance a valid argument?

@mott-the-hoople said
name your “reputable sources”.

Vivify is a black liberal who doesn't want to logically discuss topics with white cons. That's why he wants to be able to attack the sources of information instead of discussing the topic at hand.

https://effectiviology.com/ad-hominem-fallacy/

In everyday language, the term ‘ad hominem argument’ is primarily used to refer to a fallacious personal attack against the source of an argument, that is unsound from a logical perspective.

This type of argument can be fallacious for a number of reasons, including, most notably, the following:

The ad hominem attack is irrelevant to the discussion.
The ad hominem attack is used as primarily as a diversion tactic, either to unjustifiably shift the burden of proof to someone else in the discussion or to change the topic.
The ad hominem attack involves the faulty premise that an attack against the source of an argument necessarily constitutes a successful refutation of that argument.
However, attacks against the source of an argument are not always fallacious, since they are not inherently flawed from a logical perspective. As such, attacks against the source of an argument can be reasonable, as long as they’re relevant to the discussion, properly justified, and involve no faulty reasoning.

For example, consider a situation where a scientist presents an argument about the effectiveness of a new medical treatment. In general, in such situation, an ad hominem argument attacking the scientist’s physical looks will be fallacious, since this isn’t relevant to the discussion, while an ad hominem argument attacking the scientist’s source of funding will be reasonable, since this is relevant to the discussion.

@athousandyoung said
Vivify is a black liberal who doesn't want to logically discuss topics with white cons. That's why he wants to be able to attack the sources of information instead of discussing the topic at hand.

@vivify said
"I agree that it's not valid to simply attack the source and nothing else"---Vivify

You've just made a fallacious argument.

@athousandyoung said
You didn't see all that quoted material?

It was of course a joke and if you read the quote you will see it actually agrees with you. However you (vivify) wrote:

Is someone presents a legitimate argument against a source, be it known or inherent bias

@athousandyoung said
It was of course a joke and if you read the quote you will see it actually agrees with you. However you (vivify) wrote:

Is someone presents a legitimate argument against a source, be it known or inherent bias

You have a known political bias, don't you?