Talk:Argumentum ad populum/Archives/2012

Bad example removed
"Since 88% of the people polled believed in UFOs, they must exist." Now, while the dumbed-down definition of UFO is "extra-terrestial spaceship", the usual definition is unidentified flying object. While it is true that argumentum ad populum is not a good argument for the existence of such things (eg. any object that is flying and is unidentified), that example just doesn't fit in. Ran4 (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is this not a legitimate example? "Evolution is an indisputable fact since the majority of all intelligent scientists believe in it." It is an example of argumentum ad populum because the speaker is appealing to the fact that many scientists believe in evolution as a proof that it is true. Joshuajohnson555 (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm no logician. But isn't there a difference between "X must be true, because virtually all the random yahoos who roam this planet believe it to be true" and "X must be true, because virtually all of the learned men who have spend careers carefully studying this with precision instruments believe it to be true"? I mean, I believe that the Earth orbits the Sun, but I myself have never analyzed Kepler's tables and so forth to prove this to my own satisfaction. I don't much care what my neighbors believe about it. But all astronomers believe it (and I trust them, with, I think, good reason). Am I unreasonable to believe that the Earth orbits the Sun based solely on this evidence? Herostratus (talk) 06:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Lots of people saying or believing something (no matter who those people are) does not make it true. Sure, if lots of "intelligent" people believed in something, it might make you more likely to believe them, but it is not proof that it is true. I'd say that is an example of appeal to popularity if they didn't provide any further evidence and stated that the fact that a lot of so-called intelligent people believe in evolution, it must be absolutely true. While there are better examples, I wouldn't say that that isn't an example at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.76.162 (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You are mischaracterising your example. People generally do not "believe" in evolution as an article of religious faith, they accept it as supported by (and adequately explaining) the evidence (genetics, biogeography, palaeontology, etc) and by expert opinion. Contrast this with Creationism (particularly Young Earth creationism) which is accepted as a matter of religious faith by many people, in spite of the fact that it conflicts with (and fails to explain) much of this evidence, and is rejected by the overwhelming majority of relevant experts. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

An incomprehensible sentence
"The argument that because 75% of people polled think the answer is A implies that the answer is A fails for if opinion did determine truth, there be no way to deal with the discrepancy between the 75% of the sample population that believe the answer is A and 25% who are of the opinion that the answer is not A." <-- This sentence is nonsensical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.49.225 (talk) 09:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Negative Justification
This article gives examples that allow fallacious justification of arguments based on the common beliefs of the masses. Would chastizing someone for doing something unconventional or counter to the conventional belief also be considered argumentum ad populum? For instance: "You believe in wearing white after Labor Day? Who does that?  Nobody does that!" Weak example, but while it includes ridicule and invective, it also suggests a person is "wrong" for going against conventional practice. So is this argumentum ad populum or am I off base? 98.221.133.96 (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

...or to clarify, this page seems to suggest "everyone else is doing it, so you should to" defines argumentum ad populum. What about "nobody does what you're doing, therefore you're wrong," is that also argumentum ad populum, appealing to what a person is NOT doing rather than what they should be doing in line with conventional practice? 98.221.133.96 (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Exceptions
I agree with the folks below who say that the "exceptions" section is very much in error (that something is commonly accepted in the social milieus mentioned still does not amount to what's accepted being true or correct in an alethic sense, etc.; it merely makes it true that what's accepted is accepted), but rather than arguing about it, let's just ask this: what the heck are the sources for the section supposed to be? There's not a single one listed. Material like this should have multiple sources, and because the academic field that deals with this topic is philosophy and informal logic under the auspices of philosophy, it seems like it should have sources connected to that discipline (and not just some Joe Blow's website, say). I'm not arguing that it's impossible to find philosophers who would agree with some of these exceptions--after all, I certainly do not know what _everyone_ has said about the issue--but let's at least produce some sources for this material. --JD, September 15, 2012

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)


 * I agree with this. Argumentum ad populum in this context would be using popular opinion to argue against objective points about safety, efficiency, etc.; however the fact that most Americans drive on the right side of the road is itself an objective point against driving on the left (if you drive on the left you risk crashing). It's not argumentum ad populum to make this argument. Blankfrackis (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2009 (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)

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)
 * Words include epithet, eponym, euonym, ___ (adjective) name. 58.174.49.225 (talk) 09:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)
 * sorry, but this is completely false. Science does not work on a popular vote basis, because the evidence would not permit that. If we are talking about a hypothesis like "The Copenhagen Interpretation" of QM, we're not talking about science, but of "would be science". String Theory is another example. Because many physicists like this theory, it does not make it true, so it's not science. We cannot vote it to be true, and at the beginning or end of each article discussing this kind of hypothesis, you are told that "no scientific evidence has yet been found to prove or disprove it"...it's just one step further from a speculation.

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)

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


 * Hahaha! ThVa (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

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.

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)

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:


 * The global warming debate this millenium has revolved around counting the number of scientists on either side. (See for example: Scientific opinion on climate change & List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.)
 * In terms of decision making, see The wisdom of crowds, or a host of evidence that a survey of the ignorant can outperform the rational analysis or the expert (thus, under some polling conditions, Argumentum ad populum should be more convincing than a detailed & rational expert report).
 * In mathematics, the Clay prize specifies not only that the proof must be logically correct, but that it must be "generally accepted" by the mathematical community within 2 years of publication. Throughout science, the defense of paradigms, tends to be given in terms of wide practicioner acceptance (often from an elite group, but sometimes by popular poll - see for example: 2006 definition of planet).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Image Removed From Article


Removed this image since this is a biased interpretation of the poster and not a good example of Argumentum Ad Populum.

Is this really an example?
`Since citizens have to pay taxes and are ruled by the government, the state must be a judicial reasoned and rightful institution.' ... this doesn't look like an example of this at all. dougmc (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. This has nothing to do with argumentum ad populum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.158.177 (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nazi Germany not a valid example
The Nazi Party never received the majority vote,(the highest percentage being 43.9%). The consensus gentium did not arise from democracy but an authoritarian regime. It is debated whether the majority of the populace ever fully supported the Nazi Party.

capitalism exception
"A product sells very well. Therefore, the product is considered a good product."

What an useless example. For starters, the keyword here is "considered". Not to mention the word "good". - Nearfar (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. The worst of the muddy language is the phrase "superior product." According to what measure?

The market model assumes that consumers have freedom of choice, are rational, have all of the necessary information, and act in accordance with their incentives. If these things are true, then the best-selling product must be the best (in the sense of having the best ratio of utility to price.) If there is a fallacy here it is Appeal_to_consequences (The model assumes perfect information, freedom, rationality, etc; if the model accurately describes reality I will fully understand the market; it is desirable for me to understand the market; therefore the assumptions must be accurate)Staypuft9 (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The world war II poster NOT a fallacy.
The World War II poster shown on this page says, "Are YOU in this?" showing pictures of other people helping for the war effort. The caption suggests that the poster is arguing that because other people are working for the war effort, you should too. That would be a fallacy, but it's a subjective and controversial interpretation of the poster which I think is unfair. I would argue that the poster is making a moral value judgment and it's argument would be the following:
 * Premise 1: You should do your part for the war effort. (This is it's PREMISE, not it's conclusion!)
 * Premise 2: "Your part" is at least as great as everybody else's. (Egalitarianism w00t w00t)
 * Premise 3: Everybody else's part is significant. (as shown in the picture)
 * Conclusion: "Your part" for the war effort is significant.
 * Only then does it ask rhetorically, "Are YOU in this?"

That is not a fallacy, it's a perfectly rational argument. It's not intended to establish the justice of the war to a skeptic but to remind committed patriotic people of their own convictions and principles. "Propoganda" is not nearly as dirty a word as we've made it out to be, it simply means anything that tries to be persuasive. And I'd appreciate less beating up on the guys who won world war II and gave you the freedom to make fun of them thanks. --134.193.112.62 (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Democracy vs Ad Populum?
I'm not sure but there really ought to be some way to distinguish between the fallacy and the democratic argument that can take the following form: That's a perfectly valid logical form. Socrates would disagree with the first premise, and Al Gore would disagree with the second, but neither could show that the reasoning is flawed. Another example: Another logically valid argument from popularity. How do we distinguish this from the fallacy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.62 (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Premise 1: Our government should be a democracy, following the will of the people expressed by their votes.
 * Premise 2: The people have voted to do X.
 * Conclusion: Our government should do X.
 * Premise 1: Only low-cost or high-quality products succeed in an open, competitive, free market.
 * Premise 2: Brand X competes in an open, competitive, free marketplace. (usually unstated)
 * Premise 3: Brand X products are remarkable successful.
 * Conclusion: Brand X products must be low-cost or high-quality.

In the Democracy section, the phrase "wrong wills" is used in the examples several times. I am unfamiliar with this plural construction, presumably referring to the free will of more than one person, and it sounds awkward. In what country is this a commonly understood expression?--Edgewise (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Where's your logical chain? Where did the conclusion that the first argument is valid come from? Democratic voting is essentially a form of Ad Populum, which is deeply seated in the cultural and idealogical norms of the majority. The majority voted for Socrates to be executed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.84.208.57 (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed example of ethics
I removed the following from the article in the "examples" section:


 * The fallacy is commonly found in arguments over ethics:
 * Most people hold that infanticide is morally wrong. Therefore, infanticide is morally wrong.

There are moral/ethical viewpoints that hold that the above statement is true by definition (i.e., that majority opinion is the genesis of morality/ethics). Therefore, it can not be a fallacy to state this truth. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Spreading of various religious beliefs?
I found this statement in the lead to be humorous as it is the common argument among atheists: "All religion is part of an argumentum ad populum; therefore, no one should follow religion." This would be petitio principii. It is humorous to start an article about a fallacy with a different fallacy. The author's personal views of religion may be better expressed in a blog. There are countless substitutions which could be made for the phrase "spreading of various religious beliefs" such as "political campaigns," "solicitation for union membership," "science in general". We have all heard the argument that global warming is a fallacy argumentum ad populum among liberal scientists. It is telling that the author wished to single out religious beliefs for the article when there are plenty of other examples to choose from. Perhaps the examples given in the ancient Greek and Latin texts of the fallacy would be more appropriate rather than the personal beliefs of the author. Gx872op (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly where in this article do you find these "telling" claims? It is obviously an argumentum ad populum claim that, because the majority of people believe in a higher power, it must be true. Why shouldn't that be listed as an example? I don't find anywhere in the article where it claims "therefore, no one should follow religion". That is your assumption. Also, it is "telling" that you used the phrase "liberal scientists". There are just scientists. The correct use of science should not have any bias, "liberal" or otherwise. --Thorwald (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Problems with the examples?
Several of the examples given are problematic in my opinion. Here are two that are pretty similar: But no one would seriously make those statements, so they aren't good examples. Better would be: In these cases, the facts are correct, but the arguments specious. But then... how are these different from: Are these specious too?
 * Find me anyone who shares your preposterous notion that the Earth orbits the Sun!
 * Everyone knows that the Earth is flat.
 * Find me anyone who shares your preposterous notion that the Sun orbits the Earth!
 * Everyone knows that the Earth is round.
 * Find me any astronomer who shares your preposterous notion that the Sun orbits the Earth!
 * All cartographers know that the Earth is round.

Also: The person is not making the assertion "jaywalking is good". The person is either making the assertion "As a practical matter, the jaywalking laws are not enforced here" or "As a practical matter, it is safe to jaywalk here" (not sure which) and in this case his observation of the behavior of locals is a rational guide for behavior, I would think. Herostratus (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Everyone jaywalks here and as long as I look carefully, nothing will happen.

Another bad example: "Google gives more hits when this spelling is applied, therefore this has to be the correct spelling." This is a matter of data, not opinion. If this is an example of a logical fallacy, then any study that collected data could be accused of committing this fallacy. Cyraxote (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm dubious of the spelling example because, as I understand it, what is a correct spelling or definition is determined by what a significant amount of people practically do. There is no right or wrong answer. Languages evolve. If enough people say "alot" instead of "a lot", then "alot" becomes a word. As with currency, words exist because people believe in them. This is quite different to provable facts, such as whether the seasons are caused by Earth's proximity to the sun or its tilt, or whether evolution occurs, both of which have a correct answer regardless of how many people believe in it. Zoeb (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This article has a lot of problems
This article surely has a lot of problems. Quite a lot of people have posted examples which are not demonstrative of the fallacy. I've removed those which were incorrect or tenuously related, but there are still major problems with the article.

Firstly, it has to be acknowledged that its usage in language (particularly English and French) abounds, where it is used to express commonality ("Everybody knows that", "Tout(e)"). This usage is quite commonly used as inclusive language, to suggest a commonality between members of a group, which is why at political rallies and other events, the term is used to refer to those people there, or to those people allied to the cause, etc.

Secondly, the section on Democracy is hugely misguided and should link to a larger article on the problems outlined by many political theorists, such as the problem of Knowledge outlined by Plato. Those who have attempted to overcome it in subsequent political theory (such as Bentham and Rousseau) would probably be useful, too; an appeal to the masses in the case of a specialist problem better solved by those better-suited and experienced to the task is an example.

The democracy bit is outlined in a way that suggests democracy is a special case, because we, presumably in a democracy, accept the notion that democracy is a good thing. However, democracy has been, throughout a long stretch of history, criticized as being a compromise and been thought inferior to mixed or other forms of government.

Similarly, it seems all so very abstract when trying to define something. For instance, this section below:


 * Most people of the country "A" may have wrong wills.
 * These wrong wills may have very bad consequences.
 * Therefore governing the country "A" based on the wills of most of its people is wrong.

What exactly is meant by "wrong wills"? What objective measure is predicated as occurring before the will of the people? Arbitrary individual will? The wrong will in reference to the will of a single person judging the will of others? Without delving into Plato's own conclusion, the article is just full of someone's assertions without any hint of verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.105.76.33 (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Heterosexism
Invalid claim made by reverter: "Heterosexism and racism are statements of opinion rather than fact, and as such cannot be 'debunked by science.'" This basic claim is that heterosexism (I'll ignore racism for the moment for clarity) cannot be debunked by science. Quite the opposite, it can and it has been. The logic was clearly presented. Dr. Hooker's work was the first to avoid the illusory correlation between homosexuality and mental illness that led science to erroneously conclude that homosexuality is a disorder, a problem. Given that homosexuality is not a problem, there is no scientific basis for opprobrium (heterosexism). That means heterosexism has been debunked by science. The only remaining justification for it is one that is unscientific. For a rational person (a person who abides by science), that means there is no credible justification at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.251.167 (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The implication of the statement you quoted is that it is an opinion not grounded in science, which is precisely what you pointed out.

Fallacy?
I do not see how this is a fallacy. The majority obviously believes in things for reasons, not out of chance, so it may be more likely to be right than wrong. It's true that the majority can be wrong, and it's true that if too many people uses this logic, their beliefs will never change as they keep reconfirming each other, but these are simply problems and issues with the logic. For something to be a fallacy, the reasoning must be flawed. For example, saying "A door being slammed makes a loud bang, and loud bangs means a car crash might have happened. Therefore if I close the door quietly I am preventing car crashes" is a fallacy because the reason used doesn't actually make the conclusion more likely. However, saying "A door being slammed creates wind, and even the slightest wind will bother cars by a tiny bit, and they could crash. Therefore if I close the door quietly I am preventing car crashes" is not a fallacy despite practical problems and issues with the reasoning.

Even though the logic works for finding the truth (or I think it does), appealing to the people to decide one's beliefs can still be avoided to evade infinite loops of circular reference. But even if we should avoid it, it is still not a fallacy. (Since it'd be avoided for reasons other than being a fallacy [analogy: sound is not a car crash because it's made by reasons other than a car crash])

This article should not speak of this as if explaining a fallacy, be talk of it as an effective type of reasoning with a cost of circular reference dangers. Appeals to the people work very well for finding answers, and that's why democracy works. But this article misleads people into thinking that majority's beliefs cannot determine truth, and if everyone read this perhaps democracy will look like a bad idea. Ideally, if everyone's beliefs are not influenced by others' beliefs, but all actions (not beliefs) of a democracy are determined by majority's beliefs, more correct actions will be made than if this """fallacy""" was never used and instead no actions were based on majority's beliefs.

This article seems misled. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2012

But it _is_ a fallacy. Saying, "The Earth is flat because most people believe so." is logically invalid because whether or not the Earth is flat is an objective, provable fact. Democracy is simply a definition, something created by humans. Appeal to popularity has nothing to do with it. Appeal to popularity is a fallacy when you, for example, attempt to assert that some property of the universe exists/doesn't exist because most people believe so.

(UTC)


 * It's fallacious because it changes the subject. When someone says "homosexuality is not actually a problem, the problem is irrational prejudice against homosexuals" and they are asked for evidence, they can cite Dr. Evelyn Hooker's landmark 1956 study. Experts in the field were unable to differentiate between heterosexual and homosexual men in terms of adjustment (sanity), which means homosexuality is not a disorder and therefore is not a problem. Hearing this evidence, someone employing this fallacy might say "It doesn't matter what Hooker's work says because most people don't know about it and aren't willing to accept it because of their beliefs". That is fallacious because it changes the subject from the veracity of the evidence for the claim to a discussion of the willingness of people to accept reality.


 * This reminds me of the way a famous lesbian actress told an interviewer she would rather have heterosexual children, to spare them the burden of dealing with heterosexism. This is fallacious logic because wishing for the elimination of homosexuals is "curing" something that isn't a problem rather than fixing the actual problem: ignorant bigotry. It's reminiscent of the Nazis' Final Solution, which shows the power of fallacious reasoning to mislead. Elimination of a group targeted by irrational bigotry isn't the credible solution; the credible solution is to eliminate the bigotry via education.