Argumentum ad populum

From Free net encyclopedia

An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "if many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."

This type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, and tyranny of the majority, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people"), argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, and of the Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger".

1 Examples
2 Explanation
- 2.1 Evidence
3 Exceptions
4 See also
5 Notes
6 External links

[edit]

Examples

This fallacy is sometimes committed while trying to convince a person that a widely popular theory is true.

Since 88% of the people polled believed in UFOs, they must exist.

It is sometimes committed when trying to convince a person that widely unpopular theories are false.

It's silly for you to claim that Hitler would not have attacked the United States if they hadn't entered World War II. Everyone knows that he planned to conquer the world.

The fallacy is commonly found in arguments over ethics:

Most Americans hold that the Vietnam War was morally wrong. Therefore, the Vietnam War was morally wrong.

The fallacy is also commonly found in marketing:

Brand-x vacuums are the leading brand in America. You should buy Brand x vacuums.

[edit]

Explanation

The argumentum ad populum is a red herring and genetic fallacy. 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.

This fallacy is similar in structure to certain other fallacies that involve a confusion between the justification of a belief and its widespread acceptance by a given group of people. When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of supposed experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority; if the appeal is to the beliefs of a group of respected elders or the members of one's community over a long period of time, then it takes on the form of an appeal to tradition.

One who committs this fallacy may assume that individuals commonly analyze and edit their beliefs and behaviours. This is often not the case (see conformity).

[edit]

Evidence

One could claim that smoking is a healthy pastime, since millions of people do it. However, knowing the dangers of smoking, we instead say that smoking is not a healthy pastime despite the fact that millions do it.
One could claim that 13 is an "unlucky" number, since many people (triskaidekaphobes) believe it to be. However, the association of any number with the concept of luck is a superstition.
One could claim that Christopher Columbus sailed in 1492 to prove the world round, since many people believe this to be true, but historians agree that this was not his motivation.
One could claim Brad Pitt is the best-looking man in the world, because he is regularly voted such, although the sample he is part of (celebrities) is insufficient. He came first in the poll, so he must be the best-looking man.
One could claim that slavery is ethically acceptable because many households own slaves. For instance, slavery was once common in the United States, yet few Americans today would consider it ethical.

[edit]

Exceptions

Appeal to belief is only valid when the question is whether the belief exists. Appeal to popularity is therefore only valid when the questions are whether the belief is widespread and to what degree.

[edit]

Democracy

The "correctness" of electoral processes lies in the prior acceptance by the electorate that the outcome of an election shall be enacted no matter what it is.

"Most of the voting members at the last Rotary Club meeting thought that the Club should hold a fund-raiser in October. Therefore, the Club should hold a fund-raiser in October."

Democracy by plural voting is based on appeal to popularity. As a means of determining the truth of beliefs, it is fallacious. Democracy does not obviate this; it merely makes the fallacy irrelevant by defining law as subjective rather than objective^*. Nonetheless, acceptance of policies and candidates have been shown to be well-correlated with their effectiveness (cf. Approval voting). As a system of political decisionmaking, electoral systems compare favorably against fiat systems such as feudalism and pseudo-democracies such as one-party rule. (Though the astute will note that this is a circular argument: Democracy is good because people living in a democracy say so.)

Argumentum ad populum explains how some democracies have fallen victim to this principle. (See Propaganda and Nazi Germany.)

[edit]

Cultural relativity

The "correctness" of social convention lies in the acceptance of innocuous tradition and the subjective nature of the definition of social convention:

"Most people in Russia think that it is polite for men to kiss each other in greeting. Therefore, it is polite for men to kiss each other in greeting in Russia."

Note however that social conventions change as attitudes change, sometimes as quickly as the fashion season changes.

[edit]

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."

[edit]

Inductive reasoning

Template:Confusing Statistics are a form of argumentum ad numerum applied to objective criteria, such as the health effects of smoking. In this case, the data are not a survey of belief, but an accounting of facts. 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.
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.

[edit]

Notes

^* - The life of the law has not been logic, but experience. - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (see also appeal to authority)
^* - Fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong.

[edit]