Argumentum ad populum

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of the series on

Logic and rhetoric

Icon logic.svg
Key articles
General logic
Bad logic
Eat shit. Twenty trillion flies can't be wrong.
Bill Maher[1]

Argumentum ad populum ("argument to the people") is a logical fallacy that occurs when something is considered to be true or good solely because it is popular. Undoubtedly many popular notions are true, but their truth is not a function of their popularity.

The fallacy is an appeal to authority and an emotional appeal, and an informal fallacy.

Contents

[edit] Alternate names

  • appeal to popularity
  • appeal to numbers (argumentum ad numerum)
  • consensus gentium
  • appeal to majority
  • appeal to mass opinion
  • appeal to popular prejudice
  • appeal to the gallery
  • appeal to the mob
  • argument by consensus
  • authority of the many
  • bandwagon fallacy
  • common belief
  • democratic fallacy

[edit] Form

P1: X is popular.
P2: (unstated) Popular things are true.
C1: X is true.

[edit] Legitimate use

When the truth-value of the proposition is really a function of the popularity. This can arguably be the case in grammar (most native speakers think a certain construction is grammatical, thus it is grammatical),and matters of convention and etiquette.

[edit] Scientific consensus

What's the difference between most people believe X and scientific consensus which is, at the end of the day, most scientists believe X? Doesn't this make out scientists to be somehow superior to the rest of the population?

There are two significant differences:

  1. Scientific consensus doesn't claim to be true, it claims to be our best understanding currently held by those who study the matter. Scientific claims for truth are always tentative rather than final, even if they are often very impressive tentative claims for truth.
  2. Scientific consensus is built upon a foundation of logic and systematic evidence - the scientific method - rather than popular prejudice. The consensus comes not from blindly agreeing with those in authority, but from having their claims to be thoroughly reviewed and criticised by their peers. (Note that even long-established scientific consensus can be overthrown by better logic and better evidence typically preceded by anomalous research findings.)

[edit] Examples

This logical fallacy is often used by children as an excuse for wanting something (everybody's got one) or getting into mischief (everybody's doing it). Despite the juvenile nature of the argument, it is often used by people who should know better, particularly by those who are trying to force other people to their way of thinking. A case in point is the push in the United States to get creationism taught in public school science classes. The argument runs along the lines of suggesting that because a majority of people in the U.S. believe in creationism, it should therefore be taught as science.

[edit] Fifty million Frenchmen

"Fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong" is used, though often sarcastically, to justify a point of view by alluding to its general acceptance. It is a demonstration of argumentum ad populum and is falsified prima facie by the French obsession with Jerry Lewis as a comic genius in the 1960s. It derives from the 1927 song "Fifty Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong" which compared free attitudes in 1920s Paris with censorship and prohibition in the United States.[2]

It has also been noted that "The entire population of Germany can't be wrong twice."[citation NOT needed]

[edit] Argumentum ad populum... without the populum

See the main article on this topic: Silent Majority

A twist on the argumentum ad populum is claiming that some idea is more popular than it is, and then using that alleged popularity in order to justify some extreme measures against the alleged promoters of the idea. Examples include:

The term "silent majority" is often invoked by people who decide to fall back on argumentum ad populum without any actual evidence that their view is at all popular. The flaw with the phrase is obvious: if the majority is silent, then how can one identify its views?

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

[edit] Footnotes


Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
In other languages
support