- Fallacies: Formal and Informal Fallacies
- Formal and Informal Fallacies
- Fallacies: Fallacy of Composition
- Fallacies: Fallacy of Division
- Division and Composition
- Fallacies: Introduction to Ad Hominem
- Fallacies: Ad Hominem
- Ad Hominem, Part 1
- Ad Hominem, Part 2
- Fallacies: Affirming the Consequent
- Fallacies: Denying the Antecedent
- Denying the Antecedent and Affirming the Consequent
- Fallacies: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
- Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
- Fallacies: Appeal to the People
- Fallacies: Begging the Question
- Begging the Question
- Fallacies: Equivocation
- Fallacies: Straw Man Fallacy
- Fallacies: Slippery Slope
- Fallacies: Red Herring
In this video, Jordan MacKenzie discusses a type of informal fallacy known as the argumentum ad populum fallacy, or the appeal to the people fallacy. This fallacy occurs when one attempts to establish the truth of a conclusion by appealing to the fact that the conclusion is widely believed to be true.
Speaker: Jordan MacKenzie, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Speaker: Jordan MacKenzie, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Want to join the conversation?
- I'm guessing this is concerned with religion and evolution as well. For example, the majority of people believe in evolution, and evolution is taught in many schools. Does that make evolution true? According to this video, the people saying it's true doesn't make it true and vice versa with creation. Do I understand that correctly for the most part?(8 votes)
- Right, people must not just say something is true without supporting it, especially when dealing with matters of science. With evolution, you don't merely have argumentative support for it, but also empirical support for it. This is when the appeal to the people fallacy doesn't qualify, due to the fact that the majority of scientists accept evolution to be true based on the overwhelming evidence available to them.
So, it's incorrect to say that: since all biologist say evolution is true, it is therefore true. This is because evolution is true due to the evidence available that proves it is true, not because it is said to be true. Evolution could be true even if all biologist thought it wasn't true; the only way to determine if it is true or not is by studying it.
Since scientists have studied evolution, and many other natural phenomena, we now know that evolution is an actual biological process.(15 votes)
- If the topic is, say, the general definition of a term, is it reasonable to assume that the popular opinion or consensus of that general definition is a true premise for concluding that the term's general definition is such, and that a valid argument could be constructed with that premise? Or is it fallacious? For example:
P1: Most people define term A as X.
C: Therefore, A is defined as X.
Is this fallacious? If so, why and can adding some more premises render the argument valid?
A related, though different, example might be about the tenets of an ideology or belief system:
P1: All adherents of ideology or belief system A consider X, Y, and Z to be tenets of that ideology or belief.
C: Therefore, X, Y, and Z are tenets of ideology or belief system A.
What about this? Is this a fallacious argument? If so, why and can additional premises render the argument valid?(2 votes)
- I do not think the first argument is fallacious because words are given meaning according to how they are understood by the people who say/write and hear/read them.
In the second argument, you switch from "most people" to "all adherents". If all adherents of belief system A hold that belief, then I do not think your second argument is fallacious. However, if only most adherents hold that belief, then the belief could simply be a misconception among the majority of adherents.(2 votes)
- Is our democratic way off forming the govt. improper according to this fallacy? There must be a better way, because in indirect democracies like India, the majority of the population is either illiterate, uneducated, or too biased and narrow minded to elect a proper representative. Instead, we end up giving power to hypocrites and demagogues who use their power for their own selfish, corrupt ulterior motives and gains. I'm not saying that all the politicians are like that, but most are. Politicians in India are too busy gathering their vote pool and dividing the people based on caste, religion, region and language. They attract the impoverished rural masses by promising doles, pensions, reservations and various other forms of bribes just months before the elections.
I shouldn't bring the discussion on politics and democracy because they are sensitive issues. But I want to know the opinions of people. Is there a better way than democracy because I feel that although the Indian constitution sets a strong foundation for growth and development, its ideals have become muted under the selfish fight for power, money, and reputation which are given only by the people.(1 vote)
[intro music] Hi everyone. My name is Jordan Mackenzie and I'm a graduate student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I'm going to talk to you today about a type of informal fallacy known as the argumentum ad populum fallacy or the Appeal to the People Fallacy. Now let's start with a walk down memory lane. Do you remember ever trying to cajole your parents into buying you the latest fad toy, say a Furby by whining about how everyone at school thought that Furbies were the best toy ever so they must really be the best toy ever. Your parents probably responded by saying something like: "If everyone at school jumped off a cliff, would you jump off a cliff?" Your parents were, in fact, calling you out for making an appeal to the people and for reasons that will become clear as you watch this video, they were perfectly right to do so. Let's take a closer look at how this fallacy works. An appeal to the people tries to establish the truth of some claim "P" on the basis that a lot of people believe P to be true. Because it is an informal fallacy, rather than a formal fallacy, we know that there is something wrong with its content rather than its form. In this case, the content that the argument provides in support of its conclusion simply isn't sufficient or even necessarily relevant to establishing the truth of that conclusion. An example will help clarify things. Suppose you and your friend are arguing over whether or not Justin Bieber has any musical talent. Your friend says, "Of course he has musical talent! Millions upon millions of fans can't possibly be wrong!" If you wanted to formalize your friend's argument, it would look something like this: Premise 1): Millions of people think Justin Bieber has musical talent. Conclusion: Therefore, Justin Bieber has musical talent. Now, if you think there's something fishy about this argument, you're right. The big problem with this argument is that it tries to establish the truth of its conclusion that is, that Justin Bieber has musical talent, by appealing to the fact that many people believe that conclusion to be true. But this simply doesn't follow. Something can be true, even if everyone believes it to be false. And something can be false, even if everyone believes it to be true. Now, I don't mean to say that we should always completely disregard popular opinion when we're trying to figure out whether or not something is true or false. Often, the fact that most people believe in the truth of some claim does actually give us at least some reason to think that that claim really is true. If, for example, you find out that 98% of your sociology class thought that the answer to question five on the exam was "C," it would be reasonable for you to think that "C" probably was indeed the right answer. After all, if they all managed to arrive at that answer, it was probably because they properly studied for the test. You would be committing a fallacy, however, if you thought that the answer to question five was "C" BECAUSE 98% of your sociology class had answered the question that way. So, while popular support may give you a reason to BELIEVE a claim to be true It is very rarely, itself, the thing that MAKES that claim true. Note that I said "very rarely" and not "never." In fact, there are a few cases in which Appeals to Popularity are NOT fallacious. Consider etiquette: if I am trying to argue that it is rude in India to leave one's shoes on indoors it is very reasonable for me to appeal to the fact that most people in India think that it's rude to leave one's shoes on indoors. In this case, the content to which I am appealing, that is, the opinions of the Indian population, is completely relevant to the conclusion that I am trying to establish. Or, suppose that you are having an argument with a friend about how this letter is pronounced in Canadian English. Here's a situation where there would be nothing wrong about making an argument like, "Almost everyone in Canada says 'zed' so the correct pronunciation in Canadian English must be 'zed' and not 'zee.' Keep in mind, however, that these examples are the exceptions and not the rule. Most of the time it's a good idea to be suspicious of arguments that attempt to establish the truth of the conclusion by appealing to popular opinion.