Topic: Name that Illogical Fallacy!

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I recently started a thread asking the forum members what they thought of Worldslaziestbusker's claim that it is lame to put a link to one's business website in one's sig.

Everyone who responded to that thread assured me that it is fine to link to one's own website in one's sig, but WLB continued to press the issue in the other thread.  Recently in the conversation I mentioned:

Since there are many geek-types on this forum who may be interested in fantasy and science fiction gaming and miniatures, I thought it not inappropriate to publicize Golem Studio here.  And it seems that most people agree.

To which WLB replied:

Argument from popularity much?

So, I thought this would be a great opportunity to play a variation of "Name the Logical Fallacy" called, "Explain how the logical fallacy is being misapplied."  The way you play is you you explain how WLB is misapplying a logical fallacy in this case.

[Henning]

A democratic vote "Is this okay?" was precisely what you were looking for, so the results of that vote are... well, the ONLY relevant issue.

[Belgarath]

Honestly, when one claims that something someone else does is 'lame' then that is a matter of personal opinion.  So, really in that sense, the ONLY argument is one from popularity.

Also, if he thinks it is lame, than so what?  He's in the minority and is entitled to his wrong opinion

[Henning]

Also, if he thinks it is lame, than so what?  He's in the minority and is entitled to his wrong valid, though unpopular opinion

 

[Ah.hell]

He's using the argument from authority(his opinion) so why can't you use the argument from popularity?

[MisterMarc]

He's using the argument from authority(his opinion) so why can't you use the argument from popularity?

That's a tu quoque , if ever I heard one! 

[uolj]

Sounds like it's being applied correctly to me.

What is the truth claim that is being argued?

From a quick read of the posts, it sounds like WLB is claiming that having an advertising link in your signature is inappropriate because it is unethical or something like that. I would think that whether or not other members of the forum are ok with it would not be relevant to whether it it is the wrong thing to do. Therefore, pointing out that it being popular is evidence that it is not wrong is argument from popularity.

Now, maybe KH is arguing a different point, like that the question of whether ads in sigs are lame is entirely dependent on the attitudes of the forum users, in which case the evidence would support that contention. But it seemed to me that WLB would disagree with that notion, so the argument doesn't refute his contention.

[teethering]

Yeah, this is why I hate the logical fallacy hunt.  It's a license for people to turn off their brains.

uolj, your position largely depends on the interpretation of "lame".  I think trying to read into what "lame" meant to WLB isn't time well spent.

[uolj]

uolj, your position largely depends on the interpretation of "lame".  I think trying to read into what "lame" meant to WLB isn't time well spent.

Absolutely. Although in a later post in that thread I think he made this comment:

You put advertising in a space I use for non-profit purposes, I think I am entitled to ask if you have a vested interest in that advertising and to form an opinion of you if you are attempting to turn a dollar from a service provided free of charge in association with a podcast which is also provided free of charge.
Answer the question if you are interested in transparency or don't if you're not.

which does give a little more perspective into his opinion.

[Karyn]

We have an entire thread for member creations, where people can link to their works and attempt to sell their wares.  We do that as a service to the people who spend their time partaking in the community.  I don't see anything unethical or 'lame' about suggesting someone might be interested in your services.

You put advertising in a space I use for non-profit purposes

I'm not even sure what this means.

Also, the SGU podcast is not a non-profit anymore.

[MisterMarc]

It was an argument about whether something is taboo. Taboo is a measure of popularity. He says posting an ad for your personal venture in the signature is in bad form, the vast majority on the forum say it doesn't bother them. Therefore, in the "culture" of this forum, there is no taboo against it. Argument from popularity is perfectly valid, because popular opinion defines a cultural taboo.

So, when you're losing that battle, the standard apologetic tactic is to shift the argument to whether or not you're allowed to have a different opinion from the culture. Which, of course, most people would agree that you do have that right. This is a weak attempt to make it look like you won the argument.

[Neon Genesis]

Sounds like it's being applied correctly to me.

What is the truth claim that is being argued?

From a quick read of the posts, it sounds like WLB is claiming that having an advertising link in your signature is inappropriate because it is unethical or something like that. I would think that whether or not other members of the forum are ok with it would not be relevant to whether it it is the wrong thing to do. Therefore, pointing out that it being popular is evidence that it is not wrong is argument from popularity.

Now, maybe KH is arguing a different point, like that the question of whether ads in sigs are lame is entirely dependent on the attitudes of the forum users, in which case the evidence would support that contention. But it seemed to me that WLB would disagree with that notion, so the argument doesn't refute his contention.

The reason WLB brought up this argument was in response to KH identifying himself as a Christian atheist.  WLB's line of reasoning seems to be "KH claims to be a Christian atheist.  He has an ad promoting his business in his sig.  I don't like the ad so he must be a liar and is only here to make a profit and isn't really a Christian atheist, therefore, I don't have to address KH's arguments."  Rather than an argument from authority, WLB is using an ad hominem attack where he's dismissing everything KH says just because he doesn't like his ad and he thinks this somehow makes KH look shifty. 

[uolj]

Sounds like it's being applied correctly to me.

What is the truth claim that is being argued?

From a quick read of the posts, it sounds like WLB is claiming that having an advertising link in your signature is inappropriate because it is unethical or something like that. I would think that whether or not other members of the forum are ok with it would not be relevant to whether it it is the wrong thing to do. Therefore, pointing out that it being popular is evidence that it is not wrong is argument from popularity.

Now, maybe KH is arguing a different point, like that the question of whether ads in sigs are lame is entirely dependent on the attitudes of the forum users, in which case the evidence would support that contention. But it seemed to me that WLB would disagree with that notion, so the argument doesn't refute his contention.

The reason WLB brought up this argument was in response to KH identifying himself as a Christian atheist.  WLB's line of reasoning seems to be "KH claims to be a Christian atheist.  He has an ad promoting his business in his sig.  I don't like the ad so he must be a liar and is only here to make a profit and isn't really a Christian atheist, therefore, I don't have to address KH's arguments."  Rather than an argument from authority, WLB is using an ad hominem attack where he's dismissing everything KH says just because he doesn't like his ad and he thinks this somehow makes KH look shifty. 

That might be true, although that's not how I saw it. Regardless, what does that have to do with the question?

I'm not agreeing with or defending WLB, I'm just giving my impressions on the topic raised. Whether pointing to the poll is an argument from popularity depends on what is being argued. It was my impression that what was being argued was whether ads in sigs is wrong in and of itself, not whether it is taboo or ok with the community. If I am right, then I'd say the fallacy was applied appropriately. I don't think it helps that conversation much, though, as I wouldn't be surprised if the two of them are arguing two different premises.

Also, I don't consider this to be a big deal, just an interesting micro-discussion. If anybody is actually emotionally invested in the argument, please don't take this as me defending anybody or criticizing anybody.

[MisterMarc]

It was my impression that what was being argued was whether ads in sigs is wrong in and of itself, not whether it is taboo or ok with the community.

No action is wrong "in and of itself." It requires a populace to judge that action to be wrong. If you are the only person, then you can decide what is right and wrong. When there are many people, the majority opinion tends to decide (though individuals might believe one way or another). So popularity is perfectly germane, unless you happen to believe in an objective morality.

[uolj]

It was my impression that what was being argued was whether ads in sigs is wrong in and of itself, not whether it is taboo or ok with the community.

No action is wrong "in and of itself." It requires a populace to judge that action to be wrong. If you are the only person, then you can decide what is right and wrong. When there are many people, the majority opinion tends to decide (though individuals might believe one way or another). So popularity is perfectly germane, unless you happen to believe in an objective morality.

No, you're right. Except I think there is a middle ground between something that literally has an inherent right or wrong value (which I don't think exists), and something that is only right or wrong based on the values of the majority. I mean, man from the American colonies in 1600's says, "slavery is lame" and his friend says, "most people here are ok with it". I don't think the latter statement is a valid counter to the claim.

Maybe you might want to say that argument from popularity only works for factual claims. It's certainly more obviously relevant in that case (e.g. "homeopathy doesn't do anything", "most people here think it does"). And this seems like an opinion question. But it's an opinion question that is also informed by rules, etiquette, social norms, etc, that exist separately from the opinion of the majority. Those things are certainly informed by the opinions of the majority, but aren't necessarily always equivalent. So in my mind it's should still be considered fallacious to refer to popularity as a substitute for those types of additional evidence or reasoning.