Talk:Argumentum ad populum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Merge

Redundant articles were merged (copied) here as per discussion at Talk:Bandwagon fallacy. Shawnc 21:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exceptions

This section is presumptive and illogical. Appeal to Popularity is always a fallacy. Democracy does not obviate this, it merely makes the fallacy irrelevant by defining law as judgmental rather than objective. The vast majority may enact law that must be followed, but the vast majority may be wrong. This applies to all scales of democracy. A politicized 5-4 decision from the Supreme Court can be as wrong as an 80% result in a referendum. There are however theories on how democracies can remain stable even though their basis for imposition of policy is a fallacy. See Approval Voting. I'll probably edit this article to make more sense sometime soon, if nobody else takes care of it. 24.221.121.232 04:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the lead and the Exceptions section. I have barely looked at the sections in the middle. They may need to be updated to be consistent with the sections I've changed (and then the sections I've changed may need some adjustment to remain consistent with the entire article). The crank has been turned. More later. 216.237.179.238 19:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

one thing i'd like to do is replace all of the examples with cited ones rather than invented ones; just something to consider from an encyclopedic POV. 216.237.179.238 19:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I am in favor of using only cited examples. Shawnc 15:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

i like the way this page is turning out. i took out the bit on nazi germany and replaced it with a link, i hope you dont mind. also the part that i wrote on the law of large numbers may be stretching that idea a bit too far. Lastly, does anyone know if its possible to get the 'contents' window to align beside the alias list? Spencerk 04:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I did more cleanup. I moved the aliases to their own section to get the Contents up closer to where it should be. The lead may be thin, but it's apt, so I'll leave it as-is. 216.237.179.238 23:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The Inductive reasoning paragraph appears irrelevant to this article. If it was trying to make a connection between argumentum ad numerum and ad populum, I failed to see it. Also this last sentence lost me completly: Although Argumentum ad populum makes few concessions about the relationship between truth and widespread acceptence, according to the Law of large numbers, as the sample population gets bigger, truth becomes more likely. It needs a cite. What concessions does it make? Is the truth mentioned that of the belief being measured? If not the sentence make no sense to me. -213.219.186.69 15:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this example:

"Safety

Whether to follow a tenet decided by popularity rather than logical design may be a matter of safety or convenience:

   * "Nearly all Americans think that you should drive on the right side of the road. Therefore, you should drive on the right side of the road in the United States."

"

It is not the case that you should drive on the right side of the road in America "because most Americans think you should", you should drive on the right side of the road in America because not doing so is likely to result in your death or serious bodily harm. These are two very different arguments. 88.105.250.223 19:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


Is it an example of this fallacy to cite popularity of an opinion amongst a group if that group is arguably qualified to have unbiased opinions on the subject? I'm uncomfortable with calling it a fallacy to say "Evolution is probably true because most scientists agree that it is". Opinions? 129.31.77.89 23:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me- thought I was logged in. :) -Ifitmovesnukeit 23:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
That's an interesting point, but the statement as it stands *is* actually fallacious. See, it may not be disingenuous to cite general scientific opinion when trying to convince someone that a thing is true, but "most scientists agree that it is" is not a reason to believe the proposition "Evolution is probably true." That's precisely the fallacy. To avoid the fallacy, you need to refer to *science* itself, and the evidence and studies accumulated therein, and say "Evolution is probably true because most evidence accumulated by scientists indicates that it is." The scientists don't make it right, the science does. 70.100.84.55 03:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E

Can anyone think of a synonym for "alias" that begins with 'e'? Because all of the other section headings do... --216.237.179.238 18:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

That's just a coincidence. Shawnc 23:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes it is a coincedence, but you fail to adress the point completely. Philc 20:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Fortunately, it's a very silly point that doesn't need addressing at all. 70.100.84.55 03:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inductive reasoning

"However, due to the nature of probability, even statistics may accidentally measure a rare outcome rather than the norm, and unconditional reliance on statistics is therefore fallacious."

This doesn't really belong here. Moreover, it's a vague, spurious charge which can be levelled against any kind of indutive reasoning. If the above statement is taken, then almost all science can be disregarded, because it relies on inductive reasoning and statistics. The reasons why an "unconditional reliance on statistics" might be fallacious have to do with inappropriate use of statistical methods or incompetent use, not statistics itself. Revolver 22:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
It may be out of place, but is is undeniably correct. It does not say that science can be disregarded; only that one should not rely unconditionally on science.--Niels Ø 23:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
How is it correct?? It does NOT say that "one should not rely unconditionally on science". It says that conclusions reached via statistical methods should be suspect because of some vague spurious claims about the nature of probability. Revolver 10:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Well one should not unconditionally trust science. Science has proved its own theories wrong many times in the past. Theoretically science may some day have find the truth and all research, but I really doubt. Since science is still imperfect it only makes sense not to trust it completely -- im3w1l
Did you read what I said?? This charge can be levelled against ANY TYPE OF INDUCTIVE REASONING. It is not a general disclaimer on over-reliance on science, taking it at face value would mean throwing away almost ALL of science. Revolver 10:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess there is no point in debating this, as I agree that the sentence in question does not belong in the article.--Niels Ø 18:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, fine. I just find it strange (or perhaps, after the laughingstocks of the AIDS articles, predictable) that such nonsense finds its way into articles here. The whole POINT of statistics is to provide a mathematical way to deal with "rare outcomes", or to make inferences based on incomplete knowledge. You might as well say, "Math is fallacious because it's based on proof". Revolver 03:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The evidence section is confusing

The last example suggests that the pro-slavery lobby might have used the argument from majority, but this is 'disproven' by... "yet few Americans today would consider it ethical". Surely that's a pure Argumentum ad populum committed by Wikipedia in it's own Argumentum ad populum definition. The reasoning in all these examples looks a little weak to me, they mostly reject the majority of public opinion for the majority of 'expert' opinion. Specific 'good' reasons aren't given in any of these arguments, we are simply reporting the bias of a sample survey.

[edit] 100% Appeal?

If 100% of people present, and past, have felt "something," does "something" exist? ~ UBeR

Not strictly necessarily. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
No consider this, if Yuri Gagarin had come back from space, adamant that the moon appears as square from space, he is the only person to have been to space at this point, so just because he was 100% of the people who have had the chance to experience this, and claimed to have done so, doesn't make his claim any more credible. ΦΙΛ Κ 15:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brad Pitt example

Looks are subjective. If most people subjectively vote him the most attractive male. It is a Fact.


It would not be a fact. It would merely be a common opinion. The fact would be that most people thought that Pitt was the most attractive. 71.102.134.129 10:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientists

"However, science works by evidence, not popular vote." — The refereeing process for publication is essentially a voting system. To a larger extent than is commonly acknowledged, the number of people making claims about evidence is important. Let us not make the mistake of misconstruing what science is with what it would ideally be. 71.102.134.129 10:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


That is a very sad but good point. The Copenhagen Interpretation of "Quantum Physics" being perhaps the most successful modern cases of them all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.76.233 (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irony

An article on wikipedia that admits argument by consensus is fallicious. Philc 20:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global Warming as evidence example?

I think that the example with Global Warming should be removed as example. With all the evidence of Global Warming caused by Greenhouse gases, I don't think that this article will be taken seriously if this is included.

Remove that pseudoscientific bullshit! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.228.48.56 (talk • contribs).

I concur that it should be removed and have done so. --TeaDrinker 22:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think it was a good example, because it demonstrates that it is entirely possible to reach a correct conclusion through reasoning that is nonetheless invalid. On the other hand, I oppose using controversial issues in examples at all, so it might as well stay off.Pusher robot 23:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think its very ironic that Global Warming has been removed. I have always doubted the connection between Global Warming and pollution, and I think its deeply ironic that even in an encyclopedia definition of Argumentum ad populum, it prevails, as seen above. "The important thing is to never stop questioning" -Albert Einstein. Note: I must say, the examples list is none the less superb, very well done to the person/people who compiled it.

[edit] Morality exception

I think that argument stated in the example is sort of an exception. The reason Vietnam was immoral was because most people thought it was. Because people dictate morals. This statement could very well be true.

But have they been informed on the situation to an extent that they can make an educated decision on it. For example killing is morally wrong, but is killing one man to save thousands still morally wrong? In which case the people making the decision not only have to define their morals, but be fully educated in line with the events in order to compare to their morals, what happened. Basically I don't think that just because people have an opinion on something that it means they have considered it to the extent that their opinion is valid or even consistent. ΦΙΛ Κ 11:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is entirely constructed by appeal to concencus, yet we describe the method here from an intensely negative POV.

The POV on this article on the 'fallacy' is entirely negative, which can't possibly be consistent given where it's written & how Wikipedia defines what should appear in an article.

This article appears to be covering the rhetorical tactic in general, not merely as an invalid appeal to numbers. Wikipedia also has articles on Consensus decision-making and Proportional representation, etc, but they aren't covering the epistomoligical dimension of the argument, which is here presented from an entirely negative POV.

Beyond Wikipedia itself, some less negative examples of "truth by committee" are:

It's very hypocritical for an encyclopedia built on concencus to trash Argumentum ad populum. Furthermore, if we don't have NPOV in this article we create the paradox that the article's insistence that "truth can't be derived from a concencus" would be fallacious if it is true (as given by an encyclopedia entirely constructed from Argumentum ad populum).

--Wragge 12:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Wikipedia is built with consensus, but not on consensus, thus the need for citing references, which themselves should have some means of independent verification.

That citation tends to be so sporadic is not indicative of any particular nature of Wikipedia, other than that it's young; rather, it's perfectly normal for collaborative efforts involving such massive amounts of data to take significantly lengthy amounts of time to compile into a cohesive and verifiable fashion.

On a completely related note, I'd recommend that the "The philosophical question of moral relativism asks whether such arguments apply to statements of morals." statement in the Social Convention section be moved somewhere more logical. As it is now, at the bottom, the sentence tries introducing a fact that the previous three sentences just spent explaining. Alexis Brooke M (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Alexis Brooke M is right; Wikipedia doesn't typically rely on an argument from concencus anymore (except the common agreement to respect citations of peer-reviewed journals). Therefore, I'd like to reduce my call for WP:NPOV simply to that, without bringing Wikipedia's policies into it. I think I've listed a few examples (off the top of my head) where Argumentum ad populum would be a good argument, so why the negative tone throughout this article? Also, Aap is a real time-saver. --Wragge (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inverse

Is there an inverse fallacy to Argumentum ad populam (for example, someone claims that 'everyone else believes x, therefore y must be true', I'm thinking along the lines of conspiracy theorists or people who don't trust common consensus)? -albrozdude (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section on Social convention

I'm afraid that author of this section has deliberately wrote it in tongue-in-cheek manner - the [| widely-known-in-public-ban] is good illustration :) silpol (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allusions to another fallacies: What be this 'un?

RE: "Every society but ours believed in magic; why should we think otherwise?" "Every society but ours thought the sun revolved about the Earth, rather than the other way round. Would you decide the matter by majority vote?" - Isaac Asimov.

I, personally, have never seen "every society but ours believed that magic works" (nitpick: magic is a practice one engages in, like prayer, not a substance one believes upon, like ether; there is no question as to whether it exists, only whether it works) as an argument for believing in the efficacy of magic. What I have seen, is "every society but ours believed that magic works" as a response to statements like, "if magic really worked, why do so few people believe in it?" I've seen this right here on Wikipedia.

{Almost?) invariably, as was even the case with an example right here on Wikipedia, specifically the magic (paranormal) talk page, the person who said "if magic really worked, why do so few people believe in it?", most often a self-prophesed "skeptic", when confronted with the response, "every society but ours believed that magic works", puts the words "why should we think otherwise?" into the mouth of the person he's arguing with, and follows with something equivalent to the aforequoth Isaac Asimov quote.

I realize that, in this example, the one who originally committed the bandwagon fallacy — and, in fact, the only one to commit the bandwagon fallacy — is the so-called "skeptic", with his "if magic really worked, why do so few people believe in it?" being simply another assemblage for the semantically nigh-identic "hardly anyone believes that magic works; why should we think otherwise?" (sometimes the "skeptic" combines the bandwagon fallacy with the argument from authority by phrasing it more like, "if magic really worked, why are there no text books in schools about it?" or "if magic really worked, why doesn't every physicist in the world know about it/believe in it?"). And, in this example, it is the non-skeptic who argues against the fallacy in an ironic manner by pointing out that "every society but ours believed that magic works" whilst knowing that the "skeptic" will, in formulating his counter-argument, be forced to admit that his appeal to consensus was fallacious. By putting the words "why should we think otherwise?" into the mouth of the non-skeptic, the so-called "skeptic" isn't just in denial about the non-skeptic confronting him about the bandwagon fallacy, and isn't just attacking a straw-man by responding to something the non-skeptic never even said, but this intellectually dishonest (or simply dim-witted) wannabe "skeptic" is attacking his opponent for committing a bandwagon fallacy that he didn't commit while at the same time refusing to admit he committed a bandwagon fallacy himself, essentially shifting his own fallacy onto the one with whom he's arguing. Is not this shifting a fallacy in itself? Or, being intentional, is it something more sinister? Is there a term for this? --Þórrstejn [ˡθoɝ.staɪʲn]: Hammer of Thor talk 17:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation

The second paragraph within this section seems to suggest some correlation between the statistics of belief in something, and the likelihood of it being true.

If for instance, a logical proof that the answer is A attempted to make the argument that 75% of people polled think the answer is A, there is a 25% chance that the answer is not A.

This itself seems to be a logical fallacy. The belief in something has no impact on its statistical likelihood: The world is just as 'likely' to be flat if 1% of people believe it as 99%. The above example, of a 25% chance of the answer not being A, would only be correct if the question inherently had a 25% chance of not being A. For example the question "will this coin land on heads twice, if I flip it twice?" If answer A is 'No', then statistically speaking, there is a 25% chance that the correct answer will not be A. However, this is not a causal relationship, and the connection between the numbers is merely coincidental. It is also not applicable to arguing about fact as, by definition, facts are constant and pre-determined. Thus, if there is a red ball under a hat, everyone in the world could believe it was blue, but this would still not change the colour of the ball.

I believe that bringing statistics and chance into it is over-complex and misleading. Leaving the paragraph at the following would be much clearer, perhaps with an example either hypothetical like the ball under a hat above, or a real world example such as historical belief in Earth being flat.

It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong.

Grimbles (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theophobia?

This article says: "Since most of the world doesn't believe in God, God must not exist. - Theophobic point of view." Should that even be used at all? Look at what the article on Theophobia has to say: "The very idea of Theophobia is considered ludicrous by many different opinions, and is often considered a myth created by theists to insult and degrade Atheism and disbelief and criticism of religious practices." I sense very bad faith there. Can we please replace that word with something else? J0lt C0la (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to whomever fixed it. I should have been bold and done it myself. J0lt C0la (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)