Talk:Appeal to novelty
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
The page says:
- The date a computer was manufactured has nothing to do with how effective it is.
This appears to be false. Every computer manufactured in 1992 was more effective than every computer manufactured in 1947. Clearly, the dfate a computer was manufactured has something to do with how effective it is.
- Dominus 17:27, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- I don't think any of the three arguments given were good examples. In fact, given reasonable background assumptions, they are all valid. I have replaced them with some alternatives.
- Original examples:
- "Hovercars are the wave of the future! You should invest all your money in Hovercar stocks." (Hovercars may be futuristic, but that does not necessarily make them a sound financial investment.)
- "This computer was made in 2003, therefore it is far superior to that computer made in 2001." (Although computer speed is increasing, one should consider actual specifications rather than mere date-of-construction.)
- "Our satellite television service offers digital quality picture and sound." (It uses digital as a synonym to good or excellent, despite the fact that digital is not a qualitative adjective.)
- Townmouse 00:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] As applied to art?
Would it make sense to add something to the article about people giving more value to more recent art? Music is the most prominent example, I guess; lots of people (especially, but not exclusively, youth) tend to dismiss older music as inherently inferior to newer music, and often their rationale involves the argument that "newer is better". I'm not sure this actually belongs in the article, but if it does I'd like to see some mention of it. I won't dare writing it, at least not right now, as I don't know how to put it in words without seeming amateurish. --Cotoco 05:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fallacy?
I've rewritten the whole thing (sorry if I got a little carried away). Now, thinking about this: Is it a fallacy to call Appeal to novelty a fallacy? I mean, it is absurd in principle, but at once it's applied on a real-world problem, it may very well used with some success. Such as, "The state of the nation is bad under party A's rule, so we should support party B". Does the information that the state of the nation is "bad" signify that a change is *more likely* to have a positive outcome than a negative? Perhaps people have a - correct - hunch that the answer is yes, and in that case, they're not really committing a fallacy. And this seems to be the case for any applied case. Narssarssuaq 13:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Citations, please!
I need to cite the sources for the article. I'm a student of logic, and I can tell you that the info in the article are probably not the original insights of the author. I specifically need to cite the sources for what this type of fallacious argument ignores (the three things) and the part about the aesthetics' argument sometimes not being a fallacy. Let me further add that the author did NOT say that newer music is ALWAYS better. I guess Cotoco's insight is original [and important for reasons of emphasis]. Can someone help me out?
