This week I am going to look at the ad populum fallacy. Ad populum is Latin for “appeal to the people”. This fallacy occurs when a person argues that a particular claim is true because a large number of people accept it. Put crudely it contends that a position is true because it is popular – a majority of people, or a majority of one’s peers accept it.
Appeals to what others think have an important psychological influence on us because we are social beings and fitting in with one’s peers and the society around is important to us. Taking a view that is unpopular risks putting us at odds with others; in some circumstances it can lead to social alienation and ostracism – people risk being ridiculed, shunned or demeaned. Our desire to avoid these sorts of responses by others can lead us to not question certain claims or to accept others.
In fact often it is this kind of pressure that is deliberately used to try to influence people into accepting a claim is true. When I studied at University, it was far more common to hear people attempt to dismiss Christianity by claiming it was out of accord with what contemporary people think or that it was old fashioned and so on, than it was to hear any actual argument against Christianity.
Unfortunately popularity is not the same thing as truth. If a claim is popular it tells us that a large number of people think it is true. However, a claim is true when what it affirms is, in fact, the case. It is possible that what a large number of people think is the case is not, in fact, the case. Majorities can be wrong and throughout history have been. False ideas, bigotries, prejudices, urban legends and superstitions can be widely held and popular in a society.
As I noted in Analysing Arguments, an argument is valid when it is impossible for the conclusion to be true and the premises false. Given it is possible (in fact, it is often actual) for a popular claim to be false, inferring that a view is true because it is popular is a fallacy.
Qualifications
This past week Philosopher and Theologian William Lane Craig and Physicist Lawrence Krauss, debated the moot “Is there Evidence for God?” at North Carolina State University (video and MP3 available at the link). At one point during the debate, Krauss stated that 90% of the American academy of sciences did not believe in God; this, he argued, provided good reason for thinking there was no evidence for God’s existence.
This example highlights some subtleties in how this fallacy should be applied. Krauss suggested that there is no evidence for God’s existence because the vast majority of scientists do not believe in God. In support of this he stated that the vast majority of those who have studied the evidence contend that the evidence is not there. Krauss was arguing for a position on the basis of what the majority of the experts in a field think. On the face of it, there does seem some merit to this; surely, if the majority of experts in a given field — the majority of people who have spent years researching it and whose knowledge of this particular field is incontestable — believe something particular about that field this provides reasons for us thinking that what they believe is true. Doesn’t this seem right?
Here two caveats must be issued. First, any attempt to argue for the conclusion that a claim is true from the fact that the majority contend it is will always be invalid because it is possible that the majority of experts will be wrong. This is true even in the sciences. But, of course, one might not be attempting to argue for a conclusion merely on the basis that a particular position is widely endorsed by the experts, one could instead be suggesting that expert consensus creates a presumption in favour of the claim in question. If the majority of experts in a field believe X then in the absence of reasons to the contrary the sensible thing is to accept X. This kind of view grants that it is possible that the experts are mistaken but it suggests we should not assume they are unless we have good reason for thinking this; the burden of proof is on the one who goes against the consensus.
There may be something to this, however, even if one grants this a second caveat needs to be noted. This presumption only applies if the group in question are, in fact, experts in the relevant field. Consider an example that Alvin Plantinga provided in a talk at the recent Evangelical Philosophical Society conference in Atlanta. Plantinga asked “if the majority of scientists hate new Zealand does it follow that hatred of New Zealand is scientific?” The answer is, obviously, no and the reason is that the question of which countries one likes or dislikes is not really an issue for scientific investigation. Moreover, even if there were a technical discipline that gathered data about different countries and compared them, the vast majority of scientists, physicists, biologists, astronomers, chemists and so on, would have little or no expertise in this discipline. Hence, the mere fact that the majority of scientists believe a particular conclusion on their view of New Zealand is of no more significance that the fact that a majority view of any other group on this topic.
This is where I think Krauss’ argument falls down. Krauss suggests that scientists are the group of people who have the best expertise when it comes to the evidence for and against God’s existence. This seems false. In the debate Craig offered five arguments for God’s existence; two were philosophical. Of these, one drew upon claims from physics in one supporting argument for one premise and another appealed to a finding of physics as a premise. The arguments for each of the inferences from physics drew metaphysical and philosophical claims by utilising other philosophical premises. The third argument Craig offered was purely meta-physical and looked at the relationship between contingency and necessity. The fourth argument was about what is the best meta-ethical theory. The fifth was an inference drawn from claims made by historians and biblical scholars. Is it really plausible to contend that scientists, as a group, are “experts” in these areas – very little of which are science? Most scientists will not have spent much time studying these things. What would be more relevant would be what the majority of Philosophers of Religion believe – this is a discipline, after all, that does study the arguments for and against the existence of God.
But even if the majority of experts in a relevant field do hold to a claim and one does grant this claim, this creates a presumption in favour of the claim, albeit a defeasible one. The point is that this is a presumption. It holds in the absence of reasons to the contrary. As soon as one faces a situation where someone offers an argument against the claim, one needs to ask wether the presumption has been overturned and defeated. One cannot answer this by simply citing the presumption.
Conclusion
These caveats point to a final and all important issue. The issue is not so much what the majority of people think but whether they have good reasons for thinking it. The authority of a popular consensus amongst a group of people is parasitic upon the arguments, research and so forth of that group. The reason people think scientific consensus counts is because they think science counts – they believe these people are experts in and have utilised a reliable method in coming to their results. Appeals to popularity therefore have head-way only in a context where this assumption is reasonable. What this shows is that, in the end, it is not the popularity of a view that matters, it is whether there are sound arguments for accepting it. The mere fact a view is widely held is, in and of itself, irrelevant to the truth or falsity of a position as it tells us nothing about whether an argument for or against a position is sound.
Every Friday I publish another post in my Fallacy Friday series. To navigate the whole series, use the Fallacy Friday tag.
Apologetics 315 are producing an audio version of this series, also released every Friday. Subscribe to the Fallacy Friday Podcast using:
• RSS Feed
• iTunes
• One-click
Tags: Ad Populum · Fallacy Friday · Lawrence Krauss · William Lane Craig16 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
Honestly? The most common argument I hear for Christianity is ‘2.1 billion people can’t be wrong’.
“The reason people think scientific consensus counts is because they think science counts – they believe these people are experts in and have utilised a reliable method in coming to their results.”
I think that you are committing another fallacy in your argument, the ‘appeal to other ways of knowing’ (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/10/the_appeal_to_o.html). Scientific consensus cannot be considered equatable to consensus among philosophers and biblical scholars because scientific claims can be empirically tested with confirmation bias and other biases removed or at least controlled. Philosophical claims are often non-falsifiable.
I would be very interested in hearing about the false dichotomy fallacy (particularly in regards to creationism) and the ad ignorantiam fallacy (same deal), in future Fallacy Fridays. If you are taking requests, that is.
Good post. The ad populum fallacy can be seen easily in history. One only has to look at slavery, or abortion. Abortion, for example, was once seen by society as very immoral and, in fact, illegal. It is now pretty much accepted by society, and is legal. So, was society wrong 50 years ago, or are we wrong now? Which view is correct? Or is it more to do with which view is more popularly accepted?
I know from experience that if you say you’re against abortion or don’t agree with homosexual conduct that you’re likely to be unpopular. Society (and the popular Hollywood machine) almost forces you into certain views lest you be seen as bigoted or ignorant.
Another question: if Hitler had won the war and imposed his Aryan ideologies on society and imprisoned or killed those who disagreed (eg, “might makes right”) would those views eventually come to be seen as normal and moral by society? I think they probably eventually would.
I first heard the term “ad populum” on the blog of ex-atheist.com writer ASA jones (sadly it is no more). But she had some very good arguments. below are some snippets from her blog (some from discussions she had with posters who disagreed).
Agreement of opinion is nothing more than an ad populum fallacy. Any ‘yardstick’ you may have for morality is subjective and therefore can’t be considered to be a yardstick, which is an objective standard.
You criticise that an objective claim is [flame deleted] designed to provide a basis for enforcing ‘their’ particular subjective moral claims on the minds and bodies of others. Enforcing moral claims upon others translates into our modern justice system as we know it. When we incarcerate a person for homicide, we (who are ‘we’?) are forcing ‘our’ moral belief that murder is wrong on the mind and body of the killer. Yet you have just implied that this is somehow wrong, according to your ethical relativism. If punishment results in inflicting one’s subjective morality upon another, then how can your ‘yardstick’ provide any basis for justice? If inflicting one’s subjective morality upon another in the form of punishment can be right, wouldn’t that contradict your above statement that forcing one’s subjective morals upon others is wrong?
If morality is relative, then morality can only be a subject reality. In other words, morality is reduced to opinion. When we legislate any morality, we are actually forcing other people to live by our opinions. Majority rule is an ad populum fallacy; so is rule by force, because might does not make right. When we throw a person in jail because he has robbed a house, he is being imprisoned because of another man’s opinion that stealing is wrong. Once again, the opinion in question concerns a subjective reality and is, therefore, purely subjective and a matter of preference. Our entire justice system becomes illusory. In order for our justice system to have credibility, it has to be based on an authority that exceeds the mere opinion of men. But with a God who establishes morality as an objective reality, we are no longer dealing with the opinions of man’s preference, but the opinions of men concerning God’s preference.
As for your ‘dismissal’ of my conclusion that only God can objectively determine morality, you may dismiss it, but you cannot logically refute it. At best, you can only say that you are satisfied with subjective morality that is established by groups who have the power to legislate, in which case, you would be faced with the dilemma of might makes right and ad populum fallacies.
Honestly? The most common argument I hear for Christianity is ’2.1 billion people can’t be wrong’.
That would be the tu quoque fallacy, see the post on that.
I think that you are committing another fallacy in your argument, the ‘appeal to other ways of knowing’ (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/10/the_appeal_to_o.html).
There is no such fallacy, a fallacy is a common mistake in logical reasoning, disagreeing with scientism does not necessary involve making a mistaken inference , it might be mistaken to reject scientism but that does not mean it’s a fallacy.
You don’t get to declare substantial philosophical as correct by simply declaring that a position you disagree with is a fallacy. Which is one reason why I think, outside of skeptic blogs, you’ll be hard pressed to find any text on logic which contains this fallacy.
Scientific consensus cannot be considered equatable to consensus among philosophers and biblical scholars because scientific claims can be empirically tested with confirmation bias and other biases removed or at least controlled. Philosophical claims are often non-falsifiable.
This argument has been refuted repeatedly, First, scientific claims are not falsifiable in isolation, for example the claim “there is at least one election” is not falsifiable. What’s falsifiable are scientific theories. Moreover many claims which scientists accept are not falsifiable. The claim for example that the real world exists and we are not all brains in a vat plugged into a matrix is not falsifiable or verifiable. Or the claim the universe did not pop into existence six seconds ago along with all apparent signs and traces of age. Yet oddly scientists don’t consider these claims ones we cannot know.
Second, philosophical claims can be falsifiable; the claim for example the argument the universe had a beginning, or did not have a beginning. Are both are philosophical claims which scientists have claimed on occasion to falsify and verify.
Its also debatable that science removes “confirmation bias” the work by Kuhn and others on paradigms suggests that in many instances this is not the case.
Moreover claims by “biblical scholars” can be falsified, for example if someone claims that Capernicum existed, this can be verified or falsified by archaeological information for example
It’s also worth noting the dishonest contradiction sceptics often engage in here, if claims by biblical scholars are unfalsifiable, then the claim by creationists biblical scholars that there was a world wide flood cannot be falsified. Which means current geology which claims there was not cannot be verified. You cannot claim that science has proven a claim false and also that the claim is unfalsifiable.
I would be very interested in hearing about the false dichotomy fallacy (particularly in regards to creationism) and the ad ignorantiam fallacy (same deal), in future Fallacy Fridays. If you are taking requests, that is. Again see the tu quoque section.
I would be very interested in hearing about the false dichotomy fallacy (particularly in regards to creationism) and the ad ignorantiam fallacy (same deal), in future Fallacy Fridays. If you are taking requests, that is.
The simple answer is that there is no dichotomy (False Dilemma) fallacy in regards to creationism. You either believe the Bible in it’s full entirety, which includes creation, or you don’t. If you don’t believe the Bible in it’s entirety, you are calling God a liar, that is Sin and Sin will send you straight to Hell.
As Jesus said, you are either gathering or scattering, you are with the Lord or you are against him, you can’t have it both ways.
As for ad ignorantiam, It’s a pointless fallacy because it applies in so many contexts. ie You can apply it to almost everything in evolution (Which is part of why it is a religion not science)- except for that which is observed which is variations within the kind, ie dogs produce dogs, be they great dame or chihuahua.
Ty and L J, the ad ignorantiam fallacy is the fallacy of arguing that a proposition is true on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. An examples is when people argue that they are atheists because no one has proved God exists they commit this fallacy. (I don’t know if L J was being ironic by asking about this fallacy or not.)
While I am not a creationist, as L J appears to assume, I do not think that creationists argue that evolution is false because it has not been proved true. Creationists typically believe evolution is false because they think a case against it can be made from scripture, in other words they think they have evidence or arguments against it. This positive case is then put alongside the claim that evolution has not been proved to be true, so overall they contend there is good evidence against evolution and none for it. Whatever one wants to say about this it is not the ad ignorantiam fallacy. L J is simply misunderstanding the position she rejects.
As to false dichotomy, I agree that claiming that the only two options are creation or evolution is a false dichotomy – they could both be true. This is actually the same error as claiming that because something can be explained by natural laws it follows it has been shown God did not do it. Again I don’t know if L J is being ironic by asking about this because next to the “you can’t prove God exists” argument, the claim that we can explain everything that occurs in the universe by natural causes is perhaps the second most popular argument against God’s existence that those contemporary scientists who are atheists use. Creationism and evolution are incompatible but they are not logically exhaustive options; and hence, it is a false dichotomy to suggest they are.
With respect to ad ignorantiam an example of the evolutionist claiming evidence because you cannot prove it false is the assumption of an Oort Cloud in space that produces comets, completely unable to be seen by any modern or soon to be technology because it is too far out. An unproven and unprovable theory put in place in an attempt to explain why we still have comets when their maximum lifecycle is 10k years, claimed to be true because you cannot prove it false.
That begs the question how do you prove the non-existance of something that does not exist.
The case for creation is not made in scripture, scripture gives the basis on which theory is created. All theory’s start with an “answer” then attempt to prove it. Proof does not always lie within scripture, however clues to the how are there, but the hard evidence does sit within scripture.
ie, Answer. All were created – In the beginning God created the Heaven and Earth and all that in them is.
Evidence for this:
The fact comets cant last longer than 10k years limits the age of the universe.
Evidence of accelerated nuclear decay within the rock structures of the earth
Evidence the earth was never hot by the retention of certain atoms within rocks
Evidence there were only ever humans and apes on earth by all human fossils having the morphology and mtDNA within tolerence of humans today and Ape fossils only ever having Ape characteristics
Evidence to create RNA you cannot have less than 300 proteins combine at once, considered a possibility so remote it is impossible by random chance.
Evidence DNA is information, and by defending a random source you deny the laws of information which say information can only come from intelligence.
Contrary to popular belief creationists (outside of the normal acceptance of the word of God by Christians) do not claim that the Bible is the source of evidence for creation, it is the answer that the evidence supports. – The evidence that also puts evolution in it’s rightful place of a fraudulent falsehood perpetuated by the desire to reject God.
If evolution – read from chemical soup to today life – were true, Genesis is wrong, which means the Bible is a lie and a pointless faith beyond being a personal tick in the box.
I cannot remember who quoted it but a famous evolutionist once said “I don’t know how Christians could reconcile a loving, creator God with the cruel and harsh evolutionary process that requires death in order to succeed.”
However I disagree on dichotomy as I don’t think you have much option, everything either evolved or it was created, they are the only 2 plausible options, anything else is completely out of the boundary of what could be possible or relies on one of the 2 previous to have occurred – ie aliens seeding the planet – as Dawkins once suggested was possible. lol.
Thanks for the link to the MP3. Disappointing though as I didn’t have to get far in to hear Craig using the fallacy to support his belief about the resurrection
Actually, Craig uses scholarly consensus to establish only the historical premises of his argument, which I think is fair, since the establishment of these historical facts is within the province of the scholars Craig cites. As Dr Flannagan notes above, appealing to a consensus of scholars in a relevant field does give us some reason for believing the claim to be true, in absence of further argumentation against that consensus.
Craig always then gives -additional- reasoning to reach the Resurrection via his “Best Explanation” approach, in any case, so I don’t think he really uses the fallacy to infer his conclusion that the Resurrection occurred.
I really don’t think that you can jump from historical consensus to fact in that manner. Without the presupposition of resurrection I’m not convinced this consensus would have occurred. It is dangerous to then discus this as though it were historical fact.
I hold that this is not aconsensus of scholarship but (as would be expected) the consensus of believers. While it still may be true this is no proof of fact.
I see an interesting interplay between philosophers and scientists where philosophers develop constructs that attempt to define the boundaries to say you can’t go there…. physicists continually break the rules as we find reality far more curious than could be imagined. Both play off each other to the best advantage. Fascinating
John, while I have questions about arguments from consensus like this I don’t think your response is sound you write” I really don’t think that you can jump from historical consensus to fact in that manner. Without the presupposition of resurrection I’m not convinced this consensus would have occurred.” This seems false to me, first the “facts” Craig’ cites are not just from Christians they are a consensus of all scholars whether orthodox Christian or not, many of them are biblical scholars or historians who reject a bodily resurrection occurred. Second, in his writings Craig gives reasons or arguments as to why people accept these facts, none of these arguments “presuppose” the resurrection. For example the fact Christ died does not presuppose the resurrection, nor does the contention the tomb was empty or that the apostles were marytered.
You then state
“I see an interesting interplay between philosophers and scientists where philosophers develop constructs that attempt to define the boundaries to say you can’t go there…. physicists continually break the rules as we find reality far more curious than could be imagined. Developing constructs which define boundaries which physics breaks. Physics deals with physical possibilities and laws. Philosophy typically deals with logical and metaphysical possibility and examines the meta assumptions behind other disciplines like the sciences.
I suppose that if many scholars do not accept that there was a resurrection then why does he claim it as evidence?
Hundreds of Muslim scholars would say god replaced him with Judas and he never died.
You are right though, I wasn’t clear. What I meant was if there was no record of a resurrection then would scholars have postulated one based solely on the sudden rise of christianity?
I think we need to accept some things by faith.
What I meant art philosophy was that it seems to me that as soon as philosophers define the logical and metaphysical possibilities based on our understanding of the universe, physicists discover more physical possibilities. Philosophy is modified and so the fun continues.
@matt I don’t intend to belittle philosophy (or physics) and I come from the outside as I’m no philosopher or physicist. It’s just an observation and one day it would be wonderfully to see both converge on the right answers to all these issues
John “I suppose that if many scholars do not accept that there was a resurrection then why does he claim it as evidence?”
Craig did not claim that many or even most scholars accept the resurrection. What he claims is that there is a series of facts which the consensus of scholars do accept, such as that Jesus existed, died, his tomb was empty and many people claimed to have seen his risen from the death, and these people were martyred for this belief and so on. He then And argues for the resurrection from those facts
“Hundreds of Muslim scholars would say god replaced him with Judas and he never died.”
Yes and Craig responds tho these kinds of argument in his works, you may or may not agree with him but then you have to address his arguments. You can’t simply assert issues that he has addressed.
“You are right though, I wasn’t clear. What I meant was if there was no record of a resurrection then would scholars have postulated one based solely on the sudden rise of christianity? ”
Not sure what this is supposed to show, if there was no record of Hannibal then scholars would not postulate him as an explanation for the elephant bones found in the Italian alps. Does it follow this is a bad explanation?
“I think we need to accept some things by faith.” I don’t disagree, some philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga for example suggest one can’t base belief in the resurrection on evidential arguments but rationally have faith in it. I have considerable sympathy for there arguments. But that’s a separate question to whether Craig’s argument is as bad as you contend.
Well thanks for taking the time to explain the position more clearly. I think you laid it out better than Craig did during the debate. He seemed to think his argument was evidence but as you say it was rather an evidentuary argument. It still appears to me like he is claiming facts based on consensus then basing an argument on these. I think it would be safer to say the prevailing theory is…..
A fact as I understand it would be the existence of elephant bones in the Alps about which theories could be derived. Unfortunately we don’t have anything similar with respect to the resurrection – ie an empty tomb (unless the shroud of Turin is to be believed) .
Ill just have to stay on the faith side….
[…] the discussion following last week’s Fallacy Friday topic, Ad Populum, LJ asked about the ad ignorantiam fallacy. In particular she wanted to know about its relationship […]