CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Appeal to the People [HD]
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- 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.
Help us caption & translate this video!
amara.org/v/Gqmw/
![CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Ad Hominem [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qBkj-AYYg7w/mqdefault.jpg)
![CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Ad Hominem [HD]](/img/tr.png)
![CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Straw Man Fallacy [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hfil34ayaEU/mqdefault.jpg)
I hear this fallacy a lot when I get into debates with people. I tend to find myself on the unpopular side of a lot of arguments, and I couldn't count the number of times I've seen people reference the fact that no one (or very few people) agree with me, so I should just stop trying to argue the point. It's like, dude, just respond to what I said.
I feel you so much in this, man hahaha.
So basically when ones appeal to the people, she relies on the number of people to verify the statement, but the thing is that many people believes things does not make the things right or/and true. "Number" can't be authority to determined the truth on the content, but the content itself so when one speaks, one needs to provide a fact, reasons, or evidence to determine the validity of the content, not "the number of people" who "believe" the content is true or/and right.
A lot of people believe in X
Therefore, X is true.
This argument is a subsection of "false appeal to authority", which is abuse of the somewhat correct "appeal to authority" argument.
If a scientist who tests the effects of cigarettes on test animals says smoking during pregnancy is likely to cause complications, it's incredibly reasonable to accept this as true. If most scientists agree on this, it's even more reasonable.
Of course, from a formal perspective, this is not a sound argument. Scientists making a claim does not _cause_ that claim to be true.
What's especially fallacious though is if the authority you appeal to is not an authority on the subject. Democracy works under the assumption that all people living in a country are an authority on who should lead the country. A dictatorship does not. Whether or not someone is an authority is often the part that's debatable.
Claiming something to be reasonable because most scientists agree on it is a combination of appeal to authority and appeal to popularity.
Note, however, that it's not _false_ appeal to authority and popularity.
If all of those scientists do independent research on the matter, and reach the same conclusion, that's a fairly solid appeal.
But I must add things like musical talent or beauty are fundamentally different from concepts like a flat earth. In the 1st case I would argue that things are good BECAUSE most people think they are. What is good music? WHat is a good film? In both cases majority opinion essentially determines what is good or not. But in fact even that is oversimplified, music or art are simply subjective and the question weather they are good or not is merely a question of opinion. If you think musician A is good than the statement that musician A is good is true for you by definition. So you can't objectively label music with a property of 'good' or 'bad', it's all about different opinions.
For this reason, subjective stuff could be judged by popular opinion. And those who want to make money will of course have to do that, it's ironic how the example you gave was actually an example of one of the few cases where public opinion was authoritarian.
I think your example involving musical talent is not the best. How is musical talent judged if it isn't based on if people like and listen to the music or not?
Because the quality of the actual music has nothing to do with “if people like it or not”.
@@elijahlennox7881 I disagree. I think the quality of music is literally judged on whether people like it or not.
When a Steven Crowder Fanboy says.. "Crowder has 5 Million Subs, therefore he's smarter than any leftist pundit because they only have a million subs.".
Seems this fallacy is perhaps one of the most encountered fallacies I've experienced among the Right, perhaps more than 'Strawmen arguments' and 'arguments from authority'.
i have legit never heard a steven crowder fan say that. I have pretty much only ever seen fallacious arguments from the left.
@@michaelbirkett4932 "I have only seen fallacious arguments from the left, therefore only the left makes fallacious arguments."
Parent: "Johnny, if all your friends at school jumped off a cliff, would you jump off a cliff?"
Johnny: "Why are all my friends, and I have quite a few, jumping off a cliff?"
Johnny: "What are you trying to prove with your question? That because all my friends are doing something it follows it's wrong?"
Johnny: "What if they are jumping off this hypothetical cliff because their parents [God, Parachute Instructor] told them to do it?"
= = = = =
P1) Millions of [subjective] people [fans] think Justin Bieber has musical talent.
Optional P) Music is art.
Optional P) Art is subjective.
P2) Musical talent is subjective.
C1) Thus, of course he [Justin Bieber's] has musical talent.
C2 Therefore, millions upon millions of fans cannot possibly be wrong.
[Humor Intended]
This is my favorite fallacy lately, this and personal incredulity. (yes I have favoritelogical fallacies haha)
watching this for a college class....!!! the picture of the little boy is a picture of a child in threat, war times, recently, - you should have used a different picture. distastful.
Could we state then that democracy is kind of based on a fallacy?
Yasser That's a false dilemma, i think there are many more potential alternatives, we just have to try.
Yasser Socrates for example proposed that only people with knowledge of politics should be able to vote, the same way only people with knowledge in war take military decisions.
Another example is national-socialism which during 1933 and 1939 made Germany reach an incredible economic, politic and military power.
Those are some ideas that come to my mind right now.
Yasser I dont know if its me but i feel some kind of anger coming from you just cause i happen to have a different oppinion about democracy, anyway:
1) Yeah i agree that its a very ambiguous term, but it could be measured so easily like just answering questions about the presidential candidates' politics for example, thus showing at least that you know what are you voting for. Anyway it's just an idea as i said, there should and must be a lot of debate for such idea. Another important thing is that candidates should be elected by meritochracy instead of party networks.
1.1)"One other thing is that your obliging certain individuals to accept laws and regulations without their approval which makes them seem more like slaves than free men." I wanted to point out this sepparetely because it doesnt really differ much from democracy in practice, i mean, we dont live under direct democracy but indirect democracy, we dont choose laws, others do it for us, so i honestly dont see the point here.
A very good example for this is the Tran-pacific pertnership, where the USA literally force other countries, among them my country Chile, to follow their laws.
1.2) Another thing i wanted to point out " the Iraq war that was 'primarily' triggered by former president Bush." Yes it was, but war declarations are made everywhere by the leader of said country, for an obvious reason, but presidents dont think out war tactics they only approve them, high military ranks are the ones who devise everything.
2) Here you're doing a straw man. First, yeah Germany was a highly militarized country, the same way the USA, China or Russia are, and also the USSR and the British were at the time highly militarized, that said, militarization is not related to national-socialism only.
I wont talk about the "hatred-driven " part cause though i disagree, i will only say that i find it to be more a national-pride than a minorities-hate issue.
Last, before National socialism rise to power Germany was a poor country, with no technology but great professionals and in only 6 years it became a global superpower, thanks to policies like an economy based on work instead of "virtual money" like the dollar.
Yasser "i want you to adopt the same realist approach that I do" Theres no need for such a thing, my post is not about these political systems being better than democracy (i couldnt even defend that position) but instead that democracy is based on an ad populum fallacy. That said i still think theyre really potentially good systems which need to be polished before.
"there will always be holes in your system that people can exploit..." I agree a 100% on that, in fact thats the main reason why i dont believe in demcracy its too easy to become corrupt (At least on a capitalist indirect democracy).
" "people with political knowledge" will inevitably be selected subjectively" I disagree, you can set always set objective "tests" to measure "how much knowledge someone has". Besides, thats not much different to how candidates are elected, i mean, its not like our candidates for senators, ministers or presidents are chosen by us, or do we really choose the former candidates? We only can choose between the options our politicians give us in first instance, like Hillary and Trump and as we see, thy were not the best options at all.
Bush didnt take any military decision by himself, i think youre taking advantage of an ambiguous term which happens to be only an example, not a rule.
If you want the real example Socrates said here you go: If there are, say, 100 people in a ship, everyone with different, abilities, who would you like to run the machine? Everyone? or just the people with experience and knowledge in sailing? The answer is obvious, why then would that be any different for our country? We should want only the educated people to run our country aswell. That said, it doesnt mean, as you might think, that just some people, subjectively chosen should take decisions for their own benefit, but that all of our children and we as young me should be educated and instructed with philosophy and politics, among other things which will allow us to think as a nation and not as selfish human beings. Yeah, its a very idealistic way of thinking but as i said it needs to be polished in order to become a practical system.
The last thing: No, national socialism is not a term for nazism but the other way around. It's nazism the term made to name national socialism. though honestly the whole name thing is irrelevant.
The important thing about NS is that it boosted the country's economy, raised the standard of living of germans and built a powerful army (Among the bests in history) strong enough to protect the country against the versailles treaty which had the german people living in poverty for years. Yeah, it had a lot of failures in its foreign policy, but that could be "easily" fixed. Youre talking about this political system as if it was only prone to war without even realzing that the democratic superpower that rules the world has invaded many more countries than any other natio in history.
After all that, could we just agree that democracy is based on an ad populum fallacy? Why do we even have to be "adult to vote? There are a lot of teenagers with more knowledge than most adults. Do we instantly have a more valid point of view after we are 18? I dont know.
Yasser Thats cause the main differences between liberal democracies and national socialism relay mainly on socio-economic points of view, for example, national socislists believe that companies should help develop a better country instead of just making profit. Another thing is that NSs believe that the pride of a nation is its people and culture not wealth unfairly shared among most rich ones, thats a big difference with communism also, cause the last is centered in the power of the state not in their people.
i couldnt say more cause honestly i dont know much more about National socialism, as i said those are just some ideas, which a priori seem to be fairly good ideas to me.
i would like to see this argument applied to a government's right to rule based on democratic vote
Making a goverment in Spain. It's all about these kinds of fallacies.
This is a very oversimplified fallacy ....appeal to people is a lot wider than you presented it here...this is only the bandwagon variety of appeal to people
1:35 The determination of "musical talent" depends on what the people think.
no it doesn't, if i can play the piano, it has nothing to do with anybody else knowing or opinion
@@millyoneyedeaz1350 these idiots promote obsurantism the podt modernistic bullshit.
That ideology is confirmed to be bullsuit since it would allow aj empty canvas to bd "Art" fuck these obscurantist cunts.
@@millyoneyedeaz1350 it does. It's based majority feeling. All art is based on aesthetic which is subjective feeling of majority
Modi😂😂😂😂😂
Good presentation! Anyone know which app I can use to create something similar?
So...when they Pole the Audience on Who wants to be a millionaire..
This is in fact a logical fallacy?
Actually, yes. It's just that sometimes, the majority is right. So, we see if they are likely to be right or not. That doesn't mean that the majority is always right. Sometimes, they mislead and the person on the hot seat gets shafted ...
your intro is way too loud fam
Perhaps the fact that everyone at school has furbies does actually make them the best toy? If you don't have one, how will you relate to your peers? I didn't understand this and believed my parents, even with pokemon cards, sneering at other children as mindless addicts being manipulated into buying things whose value only came from the wholly false totality of pokemon capitalism, except in nine-year-old language of thought... bad move for an autistic kid who's already alienated enough already. That's what you get for trusting in authority and conventional wisdom too much. Sometimes it's better to believe what everyone else believes, value what everyone else values, pay attention to what everyone else pays attention to. After all, culture is power, even when it sucks. Currencies are socially constructed -- should I therefore burn my money, live on the street, eat shit and die? No. Words only get meaning and therefore utility because they're popular -- shall I go around vocalising random noises? No, I'll end up in a mental hospital. Occasionally popularity actually causally makes things valuable, meaningful or even true.
Pokemon cards are rubbish! *reads ******marxists.org* communism is great! *gets told off, cries, neurotic breakdown* capitalism is great! *gulag'd, re-educated* l;fdl;dfs;dfskl;fdsakp *burns money* *eats faeces* *dies*
I have severe mummy issues, introjection and resentment. I hope you enjoyed it.
Anyway, you triggered me, boo hoo poor me *snowflake melting*. I FORGIVE YOU MOTHER
Okay, you basically acknowledge the social construction issue near the end. At least I think social construction encompasses it -- it's people's beliefs causing their own truth.
its to funny. The formal obsession of analytical phil turns any kindergartenform of argument in a long debate, so you can work with this shit instead of tryin to do real theory n for example thinking about the problemn of declaring a practical conclusion as a logical problem that can fully unfold in formnal reasoning.
SORRY FO MY LIIL ENGLIsh born n raised in the continent of realthinking
Justin beifer has musical talent.. " to those people.. Break it down " does Justin B sing in tune/ on key?" I can't answer that because I don't know what on key is. I'm tone deaf
no could never remember that . .just bitch slapped for wearing a rabbit coat by pop. . .he had his ways. . later as I matured I adopted his ways
He was correct and I better for it.
People's beliefs can serve as tests for the thing they believe. Sample some test results, group similar tests together and consider them to have diminishing returns in inductive power, do a meta-analysis.
3:50 - It would be better to not make an assumption and simply ask people if they mind if you wear your shoes on indoors.
Thanks
Band wagon fallacy ???
Argumentum ad populum
Actually your parents are answering a fallacy with a fallacy.
Really? What's it called?
The kid's argument is an argumentum ad populum or appeal to the people. He thinks furbies are the best toys ever, because everyone else has a furbie. The parents use a straw man argument (or false analogy). Jumping off a cliff isn't exactly the same as wanting a furbie.
A better solution would be to set boundaries on when he/she will, and when he/she won't get a toy.
+onee thanks for the information
While what you're saying is technically true, the parents are not attempting to make an argument. Rather, they are just pointing out the flaw in the kid's reasoning - his appeal to the people fallacy - by taking his reasoning to its logical extreme. To put it simply, the kid's argument is this:
P1: Everyone thinks Furby is the best toy ever.
P2: Anything that everyone agrees on is true.
C: Furby is the best toy ever.
The parents use P2 in an extreme example to show the invalidity of the kid's argument. While you may argue that "Everybody jumps off a cliff" is unrealistic, the idea that "EVERYBODY thinks Furby is the best toy ever" is just as unrealistic.
@Dragon Fist *That's why he said logical extreme.*
Carbon dating is a weak method
Because the heaviest isotope radiocarbon 14 is radioactive.
This means it's nucleus is so large that it is unstable.
Living prehistoric coelacanth fish found on the 23rd of December 1938.
A living species that stayed the same for so called billions of years without changing to the new environments.
For this to happen the ocean environment must have stayed the same for billions of years preventing the evolution from fish to mammals.
The fossil evidence that man evolved from Apes is nothing more than hoaxes.
Check out my playlist to see why this is the case.
Everyone thinks this is a great video.
Nice video
Appeal to the People = Popular opinion?
She rlly just called out Paul lmao
Does he(Justin Bieber) really have talent or not?
Talent is Quite Subjective.
popular opinion come on.
Nice
i think she's hot :))
+longpl omg get laid.
+Gregory Rose III luckily, she will not jump to conclusions, bcz she is a philosopher. ha ha, sound great👍 :)))
+longpl Bro. LOL ;)
You are too fast.
You can slow down the video
@@Howtomake12261 thanks