Type 1 · Axis Transfer Error

Wrong Kind of Proof

You used one kind of truth to try to prove another. Character, emotions, origins, and nature are real — they just don’t prove facts, and facts don’t prove morals.

The move, up close

“Don’t trust his climate data — he’s funded by oil companies.”

SINC → VER (Axis)

Evidence about the speaker’s sincerity is offered in place of evidence about the veridical truth of the claim.

Why it persuades

A conflict of interest is real — motive is worth knowing.

Why it fails

Sincerity and veridical truth are different kinds of claim. The data is accurate or it isn’t, whoever funded it.

What it sounds like

You’ve heard this one.

“He’s a terrible person, so his argument must be wrong.”

“This feels wrong, therefore it is wrong.”

“He profits from this, so his analysis can’t be trusted.”

“My opponent is corrupt, therefore their policy is bad.”

“Aggression is natural, so it must be acceptable.”

Classic fallacies

Names you already know.

The tag on each names the move in AOML coordinates — source → target: what got swapped in for what.

Ad HominemSINC → VER

Attacked the person, not the data.

Appeal to EmotionSINC → VER

Used feeling to bypass the evidence.

Genetic FallacyAUTH → VER

Judged the claim by where it came from.

Naturalistic FallacyVER → NORM

Jumped from “is” to “ought”; natural ≠ moral.

The test

Even if that were true, would it actually prove the claim? Even if he’s a bad person — does that make his math wrong? If the answer is “no,” you’ve found a Type 1.

How to respond

Name the move, not the fallacy.

Don’t say

“That’s an ad hominem fallacy!”

Do say

“That’s about the person. What about the actual argument?”

Don’t say

“You’re being illogical!”

Do say

“Your feelings are valid — but do we have data on whether it works?”

Don’t say

“That’s irrelevant!”

Do say

“That’s about where the idea came from. What about whether it’s actually true?”

The key insight. Just because evidence belongs to the wrong axis doesn’t mean it’s worthless. It’s relevant context, not sufficient proof.

Don’t confuse with Type 3. Type 1 uses evidence from an entirely different kind of truth (character to disprove a fact); Type 3 stays on the right topic but uses the wrong method of checking (celebrity testimony for a medical fact).