Argumentum ad populum
Encyclopedia
|
| Tutorials | Encyclopedia | Dictionary | Directory |
|
![]()
Argumentum ad populum
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." This type of argument is known by several names[1], including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, 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, the spreading of various religious and anti-religious beliefs, and of the Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger".
ExamplesThis fallacy is sometimes committed while trying to convince a person that a widely popular theory is true.
It is sometimes committed when trying to convince a person that widely unpopular theories are false.
The fallacy is commonly found in arguments over ethics:
The fallacy is also commonly found in marketing:
Other examples:
Explanation
World War I propaganda using argumentum ad populum: everyone else is involved in the war effort, so you should help too. 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. 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. However small the percentage of those polled is distributed among any remaining answers, this chance by definition disproves any guarantee of the correctness of the majority. In addition, this would be true even if the answer given by those polled were unanimous, as the sample size may be insufficient, or some fact may be unknown to those polled that, if known, would result in a different distribution of answers. 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 commits this fallacy may assume that individuals commonly analyze and edit their beliefs and behaviors. This is often not the case (see conformity). The argumentum ad populum can be a valid argument in inductive logic; for example, a poll of a sizeable population may find that 90% prefer a certain brand of product over another. A cogent (strong) argument can then be made that the next person to be considered will also prefer that brand, and the poll is valid evidence of that claim. However, it is unsuitable as an argument for deductive reasoning as proof, for instance to say that the poll proves that the preferred brand is superior to the competition in its composition or that everyone prefers that brand to the other. Evidence
ExceptionsAppeal to belief is valid only when the question is whether the belief exists. Appeal to popularity is therefore valid only when the questions are whether the belief is widespread and to what degree. I.e., ad populum only proves that a belief is popular, not that it is true. DemocracyThe "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.
Democracy by the common plurality voting system 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. Argumentum ad populum explains how some democracies have fallen victim to the tyranny of the majority. (See Propaganda and Nazi Germany.) Social conventionMatters of social convention, such as etiquette or polite manners, depend upon the wide acceptance of the convention. As such, argumentum ad populum is not fallacious when referring to the popular belief about what is polite or proper:
Social conventions can change, however, sometimes very quickly. Thus, the fact that everyone in Russia this year thinks that it is polite to kiss can't be used as evidence that everyone always believed that, or that they should always believe it. The philosophical question of moral relativism asks whether such arguments apply to statements of morals. SafetyWhether to follow a tenet decided by popularity rather than logical design may be a matter of safety or convenience:
In this case, the choice of which side to drive on is basically arbitrary. However, to avoid head-on collisions, everyone on the road must agree on it. In many cases, what is safe to do depends on what others expect one will do, and thus on the "popularity" of that choice. References4.http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_173.html See also
de:Consensus gentium es:Argumentum ad populum fa:?????????? fr:Argumentum ad populum it:Ad judicium he:?? ??????? lt:Apeliavimas ? mases hu:Argumentum ad populum nl:Argumentum ad populum ja:???????? pl:Argumentum ad populum pt:Argumentum ad populum ro:Argumentum ad populum ru:Argumentum ad populum sv:Argumentum ad populum tr:Argumentum ad populum uk:Argumentum ad Populum zh-yue:?????? zh:????
Source: Wikipedia | The above article is available under the GNU FDL. | Edit this article
|
|
top
©2008-2009 TutorGig.com. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Statement