por What is the ad populum fallacy?
An ad populum fallacy, also called argumentum ad populum or populist sophistry, 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 support 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 objective nutritional quality of the chocolate.
The ad populum fallacy is widely used in political speeches, since this type of reasoning appeals to the feelings and emotions of a large part of the public (that is why it is called populist fallacy). It is taken for granted something that the majority opinion approves.
Remember that a fallacy is an argument that seems valid but is not.
Characteristics of the ad populum fallacy
The ad populum fallacy has several characteristics:
Legitimacy based on the majority
This type of fallacy bases the certainty of a premise on the fact that a large number of people think that it is so, that is, if «people» believe that something is true (even if it is not) then it must be true.
A defined scheme
The ad populum fallacy presents an always the same scheme:
X, which is the majority, affirms that Z is true. So Z is true.
Variant of another fallacy
The ad populum fallacy is the reverse of the ad verecundiam fallacy, which 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 logical reasoning, which supports his argument that someone with authority says the same thing, 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 said it but because of the mathematical demonstration that proves it.
The ad populum fallacy, on the other hand, bases certainty on the opinion of the majority, which is what gives legitimacy to the premise.
Two subtypes: appeal to tradition and common practice
These two arguments are widely used to validate behaviors and opinions. When appealing to tradition, things like «this has always been so, and it is so» are said.
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 taking care of the offspring.»
The appeal to common practice occurs when it is argued that something is right because everyone does it in that certain way. An example would be what the anti-suffragists gave to prevent women from voting: «women have never voted, there is no reason for them to start doing it.»
May or may not be intentional
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 reason.
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 change public opinion for or against something.
Feed prejudices
As it is based on the opinion of the majority, the ad populum fallacy can serve to deepen already existing prejudices in a given society, and give them greater legitimacy to the detriment of other social segments.
Ad populum fallacy in the press
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 fallacies appear, especially ad populum fallacies (which in Latin means «directed at the people» or «directed at the people»). You don’t want to inform but influence the public.
An example may be the handling of COVID-19 in the press, both for and against the use of masks, vaccines or mandatory confinement. They establish legitimacy not based on demonstrable facts, but on the fact that «many health professionals» so determine.
Or in the debates on climate change, also for and against: the impact of human beings on the planet has caused climate change, but not because 98% of scientists say so or because changes on the planet are cyclical , but by the irrational uses and applications of resources (use of coal, discovery of oil, invention of plastic, inadequate management of toxic waste, etc.).
This may be one of the explanations why conspiracy theories are gaining so much ground: as there are a large number of people who say or believe that there is a small global cabal that manages us at will, then it must be true. «When the river sounds, stones bring» is the excuse.
Ad populum fallacy in advertising
The ad populum fallacy in advertising is very common, since the marketing of a certain product is usually based on the fact that many 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 makes use of this fallacy to sell, which is its objective.
Ad populum fallacy in politics
Politics and the press are closely linked. Politicians need the media to disseminate 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 keep them out.» Here, the fallacy is in saying that all Mexicans are criminals, and assuming that it is true because a certain number of people believe it.
Nor was Hitler, in establishing an alleged superiority based on race, telling the truth, although many Germans (and millions of people in 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 different countries have nothing 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 rather who or what is most popular.
Examples of ad populum fallacies
Hugo Chávez, in Venezuela: the people know that the rich are bad
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 got, he exacerbated the social resentment produced by previous unresolved crises, but he managed to increase popular opinion even more. the fracture of the country and political polarization.
Undoubtedly, there may be people with money and unscrupulous, unethical and bad feelings, but it does not mean that all the rich are bad people. Wickedness is not linked to economic condition.
It’s my opinion, and everyone thinks the same as me.
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.
More than half of the world’s population believes in some god, therefore God must exist
The fact that a large part of the world’s population believes in God or in gods does not necessarily imply the existence of God. And the same can be said of the opposite. It is a premise whose demonstration cannot be based on whether or not millions of people believe in God.
COVID-19 is a smokescreen to cover up the intervention of the Illuminati in all governments
Since so many people believe that there is a small world leadership of the most select elite, who spends their time manipulating and controlling billions of people around the world, then it must be true that such a leadership exists, that it manages the press and that it buy from any State. And that it elaborates viruses at will and releases them.
Women have a disposition for crafts and humanistic careers, and men have a more analytical and scientific mind
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 «trends» because «it has always been that way.» This type of fallacy feeds macho and ultra-conservative behavior.
Other examples
«You must switch to channel 8, which is the channel with the highest audience this year.» «The gods must exist, because each culture has its own or believes in the existence of a superior being.» «The movie Star Wars: The Last Jedi It is the best movie of all time. Never has another movie grossed as much money as this one.»
References
Walton, D.N. (1980). Why is the’ad Populum’a Fallacy? Philosophy & Rhetoric. Taken from jstor.org. Gutiérrez Morales, IM (2012). Fallacies in the speeches of the presidential candidates in Mexico. Taken from dialnet.unirioja.es. Argument ad populum (2021). Taken from es.wikipedia.org. Support material: non-formal fallacies (2015). University of San Carlos de Guatemala, Faculty of Economic Sciences, Course on Formal Logic and Dialectical Logic. Taken from academia.edu. Examples of Ad Populum (2019). Taken from rhetorics.com.