An ad populum fallacy, also called argumentum ad populum or populist sophistry, it is a postulate that affirms that something is true based only on the opinion of the people. That is, the reasoning is based on what a majority thinks or says about something, without taking into account the objective reasons that argue the statement..
An example could be: "Chocolate is good because everyone likes it." The legitimacy of the claim is based on the number of people who like to eat chocolate, not on the nutritional and objective quality of the chocolate.
The ad populum fallacy is widely used in political speeches, since this type of reasoning appeals to feelings and emotions of a large part of the public (that is why it is called populist sophistry). Something that the majority opinion approves of is taken for granted.
Remember that a fallacy is an argument that seems valid but is not..
The ad populum fallacy has several characteristics:
This type of fallacy bases the certainty of a premise that a large number of people think that this is the case, that is, if “people” believe that something is true (even if it is not) then it must be true.
The ad populum fallacy presents an always the same scheme:
The ad populum fallacy is the reverse of the fallacy ad verecundiam, that establishes the certainty of the premise because a person of authority (a teacher, an expert) uses such argumentation. The fallacy is not in the result (valid or not) but in the logical reasoning, which supports your argument that someone with authority says the same, instead of proving the fact.
Let's take a classic example: "Euclid said that the square root of 2 is irrational, therefore it is true." The fallacy is in the argument, because although the result of the root of 2 is an irrational number -which is true-, it is not because Euclid has said it but because of the mathematical proof that proves it.
The ad populum fallacy, on the other hand, bases the certainty on the opinion of the majority, which is what gives legitimacy to the premise..
These two arguments are widely used to validate behaviors and opinions. When you appeal to tradition, you say things like "this has always been like this, and it is like that".
A concrete example could be: "tradition says that the woman is the one who gives birth and is in charge of the home, therefore she is the one who must stay caring for the offspring".
The appeal to common practice occurs when it is argued that something is right because everyone does it that way. An example would be the one given by the anti-suffragettes to prevent women from voting: "women have never voted, there is no reason for them to start voting".
Intentionality is important. An ad populum fallacy can be intentional, that is, deliberately wanting to establish a deception, or it can be simply because an argument is believed without reasoning.
When the fallacy is deliberate, it is often used for political and media purposes to influence a large contingent of people by appealing to sentiment or tradition, and to get public opinion to change for or against something.
As it is based on the opinion of the majority, the ad populum fallacy can serve to deepen prejudices that already exist in a given society, and give them greater legitimacy to the detriment of other social segments.
The word has always been used to manipulate. Hence, a correct journalistic practice requires from the communication professional a good command of the language and a good ethical performance..
When the aim is to manipulate is when the fallacies appear, especially the ad populum fallacies (which in Latin means “directed to the people” or “directed to the people”). You do not want to inform but to influence the public.
An example may be in the press handling of COVID-19, both for and against the use of masks, vaccines or mandatory confinement. They establish legitimacy not on the basis of demonstrable facts but on the fact that "many health professionals" determine it..
Or in the debates on climate change, also for and against: the impact of human beings on the planet has produced climate change, but not because 98% of scientists say so or because the changes on the planet are cyclical , but because of the irrational uses and applications of resources (use of coal, discovery of oil, invention of plastic, improper handling of toxic waste, etc.).
This may be one of the explanations why conspiracy theories gain so much ground: since there are a large number of people who say or think that there is a small global clique that runs us at will, then it must be true. "When the river sounds, it brings stones" is the excuse.
The ad populum fallacy in advertising is very common, since the marketing of a certain product is usually based on how many people like it. An example would be: "We are a leading brand in the market, millions of consumers say so".
Another example: "Use deodorant X, the favorite of all men".
The reasoning is fallacious, since something that everyone uses is not necessarily good, but advertising uses this fallacy to sell, which is its goal..
Politics and the press are closely linked. Politicians need the media to spread their postulates, but also to convince the largest number of people.
It is common in politics to appeal to a feeling of community, of belonging, of the majority, to resort to an idea with which a large part of the people generally agree to defend ideological positions.
This is the case of politicians who propose populist lines, because they know that "the majority" will agree. For example, when a "strong hand against illegal immigrants" is promised, knowing that not all illegal immigrants are criminals or terrorists, but assuming that they are because "many people" believe it..
Former President Donald Trump repeatedly used ad populum fallacies, and one of them was: "Mexicans are rapists, thieves and criminals and we will build a wall to prevent their passage." Here, the fallacy is to say that all Mexicans are criminals, and to assume that it is true because a certain number of people believe it..
Neither did Hitler, in establishing a supposed superiority based on race, tell the truth, although many Germans (and millions of people from other countries who felt superior to other nations) thought it was true..
In both cases, the sentiment of that large percentage of people who agree is appealed to, but that does not indicate that the premises are true..
On the other hand, it should be noted that the results of democratic elections for public office in the different countries do not have to do with the ad populum fallacy, they only have to do with the will of the majority. They do not indicate whether a candidate or a proposal is good or bad, but who or what is more popular.
The late Venezuelan president spoke several fallacies while he governed the South American country, but we can stop at one: when he said that the rich did not deserve what they had, he exacerbated the social resentment produced by previous unsolved crises, but he managed popular opinion by increasing even more. the fracture of the country and political polarization.
Sure, there may be people with money and unscrupulous, unethical and with bad feelings, but it does not mean that all the rich are bad people. Evil is not linked to economic condition.
One person, or thousands of people, can be wrong about something. No matter how many people say a thing is true, the validity of a premise cannot be public opinion..
The fact that a large part of the world's population believes in God or gods does not necessarily imply the existence of God. And the same can be said for the opposite. It is a premise whose demonstration cannot be based on whether millions of people believe in God or not..
As so many people believe that there is a small world leadership of the most select elite, which spends its time manipulating and controlling billions of people around the world, then it must be true that such a leadership exists, that it runs the press and that buy from any state. And that produces viruses at will and releases them.
This is not true, but millions of people take it for granted because the premise is part of traditional male and female roles, where each gender has its own specific "tendencies" because "it has always been that way." These types of fallacies feed macho and ultra-conservative behaviors.
Yet No Comments