Talk:Appeal to belief

As defined in this entry, the appeal to belief is identical to the bandwagon fallacy. Accordingly, I propose that it should be either redefined or deleted. Sir Paul 08:55, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean re-directed from there to here. This is a better term for the fallacy. Mr. Jones 12:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Therefore, it wasn't wrong to them.
Shouldn't this be something like "for them" not "to them"? As it stands now, I read it as:

A didn't believe B was wrong. Therefore, B did not believe it wrong to A.

I read "to" as a synonym for "believe". Did the author mean "for"?

Belief in evolution
It is very common for people to say that they believe in evolution because most scientists believe it to be true. This is definitely a good example of "appeal to belief". RossNixon 10:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Is it very common? Prove it. Jayjg (talk)  19:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Most people have not studied biology & evolution at university. Therefore they have to get their belief about evolution from others. Therefore they believe in evolution because most scientists believe it to be true. RossNixon 20:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That's your novel argument; please read No original research and then find a reputable source that lists evolution as a common "appeal to belief". Jayjg (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think your argument would be considered more of an appeal to authority. Futhermore it would probably be considered a legitimate appeal, although I'm sure that there are plenty of creationists who feel that the criteria listed in that article have not been met. --CVaneg 21:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) I've never heard anyone say "I believe in evolution because most scientists believe it to be true"; I second Jayjg 's request for evidence.
 * 2) Note that, even if it's the case, as RossNixon argues, that many people believe in the truth of evolution because it's what's believed by most scientists, that's a third-person explanation of their beliefs, not the first-person justification that this article is about.
 * 3) CVaneg is surely right that, even if it were first person, it would be an appeal to authority, not an appeal to belief. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 14:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) As noted, this is example of appeal to authority, not appeal to belief. --FCYTravis 20:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that the sentence "I believe in P because A says P" is not equivalent to "P is true because A says P". The former can actually be a true premise, ie. I do believe in P because A says P; it, however, implicitly uses the latter argument, which is a logical fallacy. As an aside, the theory of evolution is more "true" than creationism because it has a higher predictive power, not because any biologist/your sister/my dog believes in it. Shawnc 15:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Death penalty *should* be an appeal to majority
For example, using the argument that most Americans support the death penalty as an argument for the death penalty is an appeal to the majority and does not logically support the argument.

Sure it does, for those who take the position that law is supposed to represent the will of the majority. GreenReaper 07:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That whole section looks a bit tacked on, and I'm not sure that it adds anything to the article that isn't stated in the first section. I'm almost inclined to just excise it since the death penalty is a rather contentious issue in general and may just confuse things.--CVaneg 20:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GreenReaper has expressed the paradox of democracy (or, to be precise, voting majoritarianism) perfectly. The question here is: is the issue the moral status of death penalty, or the position with regard to a particular political theory (namely majoritarianism)? Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anecdote
I placed a related historical story in this article for encyclopedic purposes. Hope no one feels that it's out of place. Shawnc 02:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * On second thought, it seemed too large relative to the rest of the article. Moved to own article. Shawnc 02:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge
Please see Talk:Bandwagon fallacy for discussion. Shawnc 17:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * i merged 'appeal to belief' and 'bandwagon fallacy' into Argumentum ad numerum. please tell me what you think, use Talk:Argumentum ad numerum. Spencerk 01:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)