Ad populum fallacy is a weak argument based on popular opinion, without evidence. It’s commonly used in daily life, particularly by children. Aristotle classified it as an irrelevant conclusion and it’s taught in some schools to enhance critical thinking. It’s recognized in debates and can be used to refute an entire argument. In politics, it can lead to worse decision-making because facts are ignored in the face of popular opinion.
The term ad populum fallacy is used in logic and debate to describe an argument that is based on popular opinion. This is considered a weak argument, because he has no evidence to support his claims. Ad populum arguments are commonly made in daily life, particularly by children hoping to conform to their peers. This concept is also known as an appeal to the masses or bandwagon fallacy and is very similar to an ad numerum argument. Other fallacious arguments are based on fear, misrepresentation, or personal attacks.
Much of the terminology of rhetoric and debate was developed by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle in his Organon. This work describes 13 types of argumentative fallacies, or sophistical refutations. The ad populum fallacy is classified as a type of clerical error known as an irrelevant conclusion. An ad populum argument produces no real evidence to support its thesis, so any conclusions drawn from it must be dismissed as irrelevant. Some private schools still teach Aristotelian-style logic and rhetoric to students as part of a classical education program designed to enhance critical thinking.
Children may be prone to invoke an ad populum fallacy when arguing with their parents. They often claim that everyone in their school either has a certain product or is allowed to engage in a risky activity. The parents’ response usually asks the child if he would still want to emulate the actions of his peers if everyone else was engaged in clearly harmful behavior, such as jumping off a cliff. This argument exposes the fallacy behind ad populum arguments, showing that majority beliefs do not provide convincing evidence.
Many high school and college debating students learn the ad populum fallacy along with Aristotle’s other sophistic refutations. These fallacies can be recognized by opponents in a debate and used to refute an entire argument. While pointing out these mistakes can help undermine an opponent, they can also provide strong rhetoric and win over some debating judges.
The ad populum fallacy is particularly problematic in a representative democracy. Government draws its power from the people, so arguments based on polls and polls can be hard for elected leaders to ignore. Ad populum arguments are often used in political debates to help make arguments with little or no factual evidence to back them up. In some cases, this can lead to worse decision-making because facts are ignored in the face of popular opinion.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
