Talk:Argumentum ad populum

Zeus Dammit!
Everybody I ever asked said that they had heard it's true that your eyes pop out if you keep your eyes open during a sneeze! Zeus be damned! Jimaginator 11:25, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Why Scientific Consensus is *not* Argumentum ad populum
I feel like there should be a section on this, as I've heard more than one person accuse Scientific Consensus of being a form of Argumentum ad populum.WilhelmJunker 18:17, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
 * You raise a good point, although I suspect it would make the anti-sciencists brains asplode.  ħ uman  01:37, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Why is it not a fallacy to claim something is true because there's a scientific consensus on it? Fallacy (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Because scientific consensus implies peer review, studies, years of research and debates, and rigorous criteria. Scientific consensus is not "
 * It's many learned men people each arriving at a similar conclusion after a strict process and much discussion. -- 16:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a fallacy to claim something is true because of scientific consensus. The claim is not that scientific consensus is true but that it is probable because of the supporting evidence amassed by those knowledgeable in the field and assessed by their piers. Very different. Bad Faith (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Even then, I think that arguing something is true (or probably true) because of a scientific consensus is bad form. It's better to list specific evidences that support the theory. Fallacy (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please write this section! as well as (if it's not there) why an expert talking about expert things is not a argument of authority (I can't remember that term).  cause i sware I'd link to this page every day when i talk to fundies.  this is one of their biggest arguments.  --[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   Tue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 17:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your wish is my command. It could still do with improving but it's a start. Bad Faith (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good post on this. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd rather say that with overwhelming probability scientific consensus is closest to truth. --85.76.116.146 (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus Reality
Should we make a note about the validity of argumentum ad populum if you did have reality determined by consensus, like in Mage the Ascension? &mdash; Unsigned, by: 173.87.102.102 / talk / contribs

I've added a bit on that, with examples I think are more relevant. 85.229.217.24 (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

First amendment
"Sadly, the argument is rarely defeated by pointing out its fallaciousness, but by pointing out that the teaching of creationism in public school classes is unconstitutional by being at odds with the First Amendment." The fallaciousness of argumentum ad populum is a large part of the reason for having the First Amendment. If we could rely on the majority being right, then there would not be as much need for the free expression of minority opinions. Tisane (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. In the elected branches of government, there is an inherent tension between the fallaciousness argument and what those branches do, and in the courts, the fallaciousness argument is just beside the point.  I recommend that we remove that sentence, as it adds nothing. ... of liberals? (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Democracy
We need a better explanation for why or why not it is an appeal to popularity. 14:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Tactical First Strike?
Just for fun...

When someone is advocating Alternatives to Medicine, and ask you "do you know how many Chinese people there are?", would it be wise to respond with "there are over a billion Atheists/Communists in China", so as to poison the well before they can even make the "a billion Chinese can't be wrong" argument? I'm just wondering how it would pan out in real life. CorruptUser (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting take. Or, how about a version directed against Catholics, going backwards in time. "There's over a trillion proto-caveman apealoid ancestors in hell. Could they all be wrong?" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Epistemology
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-020-02850-6 lol

FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)