3 ms·

Argumentum Ad Populum

6 points by mgh2 4y ago

hirundo 4y ago
"In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because the majority thinks so." Isn't that the central conceit of democracy?
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Isn't that the central conceit of democracy? Democracy is not a system of determining truth, it is a system of aggregating preferences.
  - hirundo 4y ago
    > Democracy is not a system of determining truth, it is a system of aggregating preferences. I agree, but the definition of the fallacy goes: ...claiming a truth *or affirming something is good* because the majority thinks so... "Aggregating preferences" sounds like "affirming something is good" across some population. Does that make the main argument for democracy a fallacy? Or is it fallacious that argumentum ad populum is necessarily a fallacy? Or is democracy an exception to the general fallacy? I'm undecided.
    - ntripp34 4y ago
      I think what's tripping you up here is that democracy makes no guarantee that the majority decision is correct, but rather what they wanted. You could deconstruct this idea with something I've always struggled in answering-- is the purpose of representative governance to do the right thing or the thing that the majority desires? Take, for example, slavery-- at one point, the majority desired it but in retrospect we can see it was clearly incorrect, so if you elect someone are you asking them to represent your will or what is correct? Most people treat the two as synonyms and indeed in some perfect plane it would be, but it rarely actually is. But that is another dialogue entirely. So, for now consider that democracy once permitted slavery; to say it was morally correct or similar because it was the will of the majority would be an argument ad populum, but the decision to permit it based on the majority will is not in itself a statement about correctness only that it was the majorities will.
ggm 4y ago
Luckily voting is not seeking proof, but alignment to desire and outcome. The problem being that the words debate, and proof, and argument(um) are applied in more than one field. Words have many meanings and if the fields are close (political debate around logical proofs and lines of legal reasoning) this is a problem. Of COURSE politicians make appeals to popular sentiment and of COURSE they make appeals to authority (of the court over government, of religion over constitution, you name it) The SCOTUS may well believe their legal process defends either for or against populism, the proponents outside are definitely trying to appeal to the people as they see it. Misreading the numbers in low participation voting is not uncommon so I suspect contributing biasses exist to say "look there are millions of us here, we must be right" Statistically, only a minority actually align to most current populist appeals like anti abortion, war on China, guns. The problem is not arguments to popularity, it's distortion of voting process to empower bad decisions on specious grounds of popular support. I write this since the only substantial debate and argument subject to this problem right now, is the war on women's reproductive rights. The rightist, anti abortionist view definitely think they are both correct and in a majority. I differ on their correctness, and I differ on the actuality of their majority outside of gerrymandered seats, low turnout and voter suppression. I suspect they would counter the populist street protests are evidence of appeals to the people, not the logic of the legalism at play. Is anyone seriously believing the central problem of our time is states rights, or the need for originalist interpretation of constitutional law? I don't think so, but I'm partisan.

6 points by mgh2 4y ago

"In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because the majority thinks so." Isn't that the central conceit of democracy?

dragonwriter 4y ago
> Isn't that the central conceit of democracy? Democracy is not a system of determining truth, it is a system of aggregating preferences.
- hirundo 4y ago
  > Democracy is not a system of determining truth, it is a system of aggregating preferences. I agree, but the definition of the fallacy goes: ...claiming a truth *or affirming something is good* because the majority thinks so... "Aggregating preferences" sounds like "affirming something is good" across some population. Does that make the main argument for democracy a fallacy? Or is it fallacious that argumentum ad populum is necessarily a fallacy? Or is democracy an exception to the general fallacy? I'm undecided.
  - ntripp34 4y ago
    I think what's tripping you up here is that democracy makes no guarantee that the majority decision is correct, but rather what they wanted. You could deconstruct this idea with something I've always struggled in answering-- is the purpose of representative governance to do the right thing or the thing that the majority desires? Take, for example, slavery-- at one point, the majority desired it but in retrospect we can see it was clearly incorrect, so if you elect someone are you asking them to represent your will or what is correct? Most people treat the two as synonyms and indeed in some perfect plane it would be, but it rarely actually is. But that is another dialogue entirely. So, for now consider that democracy once permitted slavery; to say it was morally correct or similar because it was the will of the majority would be an argument ad populum, but the decision to permit it based on the majority will is not in itself a statement about correctness only that it was the majorities will.

ggm 4y ago

Luckily voting is not seeking proof, but alignment to desire and outcome. The problem being that the words debate, and proof, and argument(um) are applied in more than one field. Words have many meanings and if the fields are close (political debate around logical proofs and lines of legal reasoning) this is a problem. Of COURSE politicians make appeals to popular sentiment and of COURSE they make appeals to authority (of the court over government, of religion over constitution, you name it) The SCOTUS may well believe their legal process defends either for or against populism, the proponents outside are definitely trying to appeal to the people as they see it. Misreading the numbers in low participation voting is not uncommon so I suspect contributing biasses exist to say "look there are millions of us here, we must be right" Statistically, only a minority actually align to most current populist appeals like anti abortion, war on China, guns. The problem is not arguments to popularity, it's distortion of voting process to empower bad decisions on specious grounds of popular support. I write this since the only substantial debate and argument subject to this problem right now, is the war on women's reproductive rights. The rightist, anti abortionist view definitely think they are both correct and in a majority. I differ on their correctness, and I differ on the actuality of their majority outside of gerrymandered seats, low turnout and voter suppression. I suspect they would counter the populist street protests are evidence of appeals to the people, not the logic of the legalism at play. Is anyone seriously believing the central problem of our time is states rights, or the need for originalist interpretation of constitutional law? I don't think so, but I'm partisan.