The genetic fallacy, or genetic error, is the act of rejecting or accepting an argument based on its origin rather than its content. According to the genetic error, we judge a claim by paying too much attention to its source or history, even if this criticism has no bearing on the claim's truth. Consequently, we fail to explain why the argument itself is unfounded or to examine the reasons given to justify it.
The genetic fallacy occurs when we focus on the source or history of an argument rather than the argument itself. This happens because people often confuse:
Reasons with causes
Psychological with logical explanations
Sources with content of arguments
In other words, we often fail to see the difference between an explanation (i.e. why something is believed) and a justification (why something is true). When reasons for belief are used as if they were reasons for truth, we fall into the trap of genetic error.
In general, it is best to separate the sources from the content of an argument. Even when we perceive the source negatively (or positively), this does not necessarily mean that the argument is bad (or good). In other words, we generally cannot prove or disprove a claim by identifying its cause; rather, we must logically examine the premises and the conclusion.
The limitations and delimitations (the socio-techno-economic framework and the scientific framework) of the stated problem are made in the introduction; these elements are present only to contextualize the research and cannot be taken into account as arguments.