If someone said this, is it a logical fallacy?

Question

Someone used Warren Farrell as a source to prove men make less money then women. Then someone responds with this.

"Sigh. You just cited an article sourced from WARREN FARRELL, laughingstock of university sociology departments across the nation. And I highly doubt pretty much all of those numbers. So when you can cite these numbers from scholars anywhere who are not Warren Farrell, we'll talk".

Is this a type of logical fallacy?

Answer 1

It is an attack on credibility. The source of the numbers is not credible and therefore subject to skepticism.

However!

Rejecting the numbers because they come from Warren Farrell might very well be a fallacy. Especially if other numbers back it up.

Answer 2

Before I agree or disagree with you, Let us begin with my accepted definition of a logical fallacy.
What is a Logical Fallacy?

A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy.
_____________________________
So, back to my answer, which is -No- all the person said was that he or she will not discuss or give credence to any assertion done by Mr Warren Farrell.

My interpretation of this person's answer is thus:

"I am open to discuss this allegation of men making less money than women. However, your only source is Mr Warren Farrell and I do not believe that he is credible enough. FInd me another source"
__________________
What type of reasoning is this? . Irrelevant appeal.For example, an appeal to authority seeks to persuade by citing what someone else, a perceived authority, thinks on the subject, as if that resolves the question. The degree of support that such an appeal lends to a claim varies depending on the particular authority in question, the relevance of their expertise to the claim,

Answer 3

It is an ad hominem fallacy. In short, you attack the person rather than the content of the message.

I'd add that whomever wrote this attack is quite uninformed. While Farrell challenges traditional feminism, he does so from a rare position. He was President of the National Organization of Women (NOW) three times, and he is the only man to do that. As such, I think he is a fairly credible source regarding gender studies. Any female President of NOW has been claimed to have credibility, if he doesn't, then that itself is sexist.

Answer 4

Sounds a bit ad hominem, due to its nearly sarcastic style. However, the response's argument does not rely on an attack of the person Farrell as much as it relies on the implication that his academics leave him short on authority over sociological information. The intended point is that the person who quoted Farrell came close to commiting the fallacy of quoting a nonauthoritative source.

Answer 5

Well, in the case of the individual not acknowledging Warren Farrell, it can be classified as an ad hominem fallacy.

Ad Hominem is a fallacy of attacking the person directly, and not attacking the argument, hence not engaging in a debate.

Here's a text I got from a website, which source it listed below:

"It is important to note that the label “ad hominem” is ambiguous, and that not every kind of ad hominem argument is fallacious. In one sense, an ad hominem argument is an argument in which you offer premises that you the arguer don’t accept, but which you know the listener does accept, in order to show that his position is incoherent (as in, for example, the Euthyphro dilemma). There is nothing wrong with this type of ad hominem."

Answer 6

If you assume that the responder is right about Warren Farrell, then it is a perfectly logical response.

Warren Farrell is not reliable.
The statistics are from Warren Farrell.
Therefore, your statistics are not reliable.

Answer 7

To me it smacks of arrogance.