Topic: Name that Illogical Fallacy!

[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.

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.

I think it's hard to make an assessment by judging standards of a different era by those of today. At the time, slavery was not immoral. It is now, because societal views have changed. By today's standards, the person in that time period who was against the majority was correct....but by the standards of the time, he was wrong. In 200 years, they may look back on people of our time and say that we were horrible monsters for paying different people different wages. But by the standards of now, it's generally considered to be fine. Neither is right or wrong, except in the context of their own time-period and...uh...zeitgeist, I guess.

[uolj]

I think it's hard to make an assessment by judging standards of a different era by those of today. At the time, slavery was not immoral. It is now, because societal views have changed. By today's standards, the person in that time period who was against the majority was correct....but by the standards of the time, he was wrong. In 200 years, they may look back on people of our time and say that we were horrible monsters for paying different people different wages. But by the standards of now, it's generally considered to be fine. Neither is right or wrong, except in the context of their own time-period and...uh...zeitgeist, I guess.

I wouldn't use today's standards to condemn somebody from the past. That was more of an example of where an opinion could be argued and where most would think the argument from popularity would be insufficient as a rebuttal.

[Caffiene]

an example of where an opinion could be argued and where most would think the argument from popularity would be insufficient as a rebuttal.

I think this is true, but would require the opinion to actually be argued. Your example didnt quite work because "slavery is lame" is not a real argument by itself. Most people today consider popularity to not be a valid rebuttal not because "slavery is lame" but because we have the benefit of being aware of significant argument on the humanity and equality of the people who were kept as slaves. We assume that "slavery is lame" is a statement that stands in for the actual arguments that we're aware of.

If the statement was only that slavery is lame then it would only be an opinion in the same way that WLB's original statement seems to be, rather than an argument, and so popularity would be just as valid a response as the original statement.

I think popularity is only a logical fallacy in response to "[X] is bad/incorrect/doesnt work/etc" when it is implied that the statement is a stand in for arguments and evidence that we are previously aware of.

[uolj]

I assumed that "ads in sigs are lame" was a stand in for a larger argument, as evidenced by further clarification of that argument later. If the parties in the discussion are thinking about the same argument, then it's fine (and I think the logical fallacy charge is valid). But I think it's likely that there is misunderstanding, and it's better form, to make sure the fuller argument is understood before throwing out the logical fallacy claim.

[Moloch]

Poll results are only an 'argument from popularity' if you use the results to make a claim other than, "these people think x".

If a poll finds that 60% of Americans believe in creationism, then saying that 60% of Americans believe in creationism, is not a logical fallacy. Saying that 60% of Americans believe in creationism therefore it's correct, is an 'argument from popularity'.

A poll revealing that the denizens of the SGU forum do not think an advertising signature is lame or inappropriate, reveals just that, that the SGU forum doesn't feel it's lame or inappropriate. The nature of the question is different to creationism though, because this is value judgement and not a scientific question. Thus there is no legitimate authority on whether it's actually "lame", and the authority on whether it's appropriate lies with the mod team (who say it's fine).

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Poll results are only an 'argument from popularity' if you use the results to make a claim other than, "these people think x".

If a poll finds that 60% of Americans believe in creationism, then saying that 60% of Americans believe in creationism, is not a logical fallacy. Saying that 60% of Americans believe in creationism therefore it's correct, is an 'argument from popularity'.

A poll revealing that the denizens of the SGU forum do not think an advertising signature is lame or inappropriate, reveals just that, that the SGU forum doesn't feel it's lame or inappropriate. The nature of the question is different to creationism though, because this is value judgement and not a scientific question. Thus there is no legitimate authority on whether it's actually "lame", and the authority on whether it's appropriate lies with the mod team (who say it's fine).

This was the answer I had in mind, but most of the other ideas are good, too.

[Belgarath]

Still, see my earlier post...

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Still, see my earlier post...

I agree with your earlier post.

When people misuse logical fallacies, they generally misuse them in multiple ways.

(OMG! Hasty Generalization! Call the logical fallacy police!)

[uolj]

Poll results are only an 'argument from popularity' if you use the results to make a claim other than, "these people think x".

If a poll finds that 60% of Americans believe in creationism, then saying that 60% of Americans believe in creationism, is not a logical fallacy. Saying that 60% of Americans believe in creationism therefore it's correct, is an 'argument from popularity'.

A poll revealing that the denizens of the SGU forum do not think an advertising signature is lame or inappropriate, reveals just that, that the SGU forum doesn't feel it's lame or inappropriate. The nature of the question is different to creationism though, because this is value judgement and not a scientific question. Thus there is no legitimate authority on whether it's actually "lame", and the authority on whether it's appropriate lies with the mod team (who say it's fine).

I agree with this.

But it ignores the possibility that there could be some tangible evidence or reasoning to back up the "lame" claim. Maybe forum rules that the majority of posters are ignorant of, or etiquette or other socially accepted norms that inform that claim but are ignored by the people who voted.

WLB states "I think X is lame". If the response is, "other people don't think so" then that's not a fallacy. If the response is "you're wrong because other people don't think so," then that is argument from popularity and is fallacious reasoning.

It's a subtle difference and in reality it depends on what was meant by various statements that were made.

[Ansalem]

Is it really necessary to stretch this discussion across three separate threads?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Is it really necessary to stretch this discussion across three separate threads?

The first thread was about religion.

The second thread was about advertising in sigs.

This thread is about misusing logical fallacies.

Are you  these three subjects are similar enough to be part of the same thread?

I know that threads often morph to be about something completely different from the nominal subject, but people often complain when that happens, so I intentionally broke off tangential conversations so that the each thread could be about what it's about.

[Ansalem]

Is it really necessary to stretch this discussion across three separate threads?

The first thread was about religion.

The second thread was about advertising in sigs.

This thread is about misusing logical fallacies.

Are you  these three subjects are similar enough to be part of the same thread?

I know that threads often morph to be about something completely different from the nominal subject, but people often complain when that happens, so I intentionally broke off tangential conversations so that the each thread could be about what it's about.

I don't know, that's why I was asking. 

They all seem to have the same overall topic, but I suppose the sub-topics could be large enough separately to warrant multiple threads. Two made sense, but three struck me as a bit silly. It doesn't bother me, I was just curious why there's three, that's all.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Is it really necessary to stretch this discussion across three separate threads?

The first thread was about religion.

The second thread was about advertising in sigs.

This thread is about misusing logical fallacies.

Are you  these three subjects are similar enough to be part of the same thread?

I know that threads often morph to be about something completely different from the nominal subject, but people often complain when that happens, so I intentionally broke off tangential conversations so that the each thread could be about what it's about.

I don't know, that's why I was asking. 

They all seem to have the same overall topic, but I suppose the sub-topics could be large enough separately to warrant multiple threads. Two made sense, but three struck me as a bit silly. It doesn't bother me, I was just curious why there's three, that's all.

What you should have done  was create a 4th thread that links back to all three of the other threads to discuss whether or not all of these threads are necessary.  That would have been hilarious.

[Plastique]

This thread is about misusing logical fallacies.

What's the proper use of a logical fallacy?

[teethering]

This thread is about misusing logical fallacies.

What's the proper use of a logical fallacy?

I'm glad you asked.

The proper use of pointing out a logical fallacy is to help the person making fallacious claim to amend their argument, it's not to "win" the argument by finding a fallacy in their position.  And the way that it works is that you evaluate their argument on its merits, not by scouring it with hope of finding something that looks like X or Y fallacy, because then you win.  It often happens that the argument actually has merit, but the person either misstated something or one of the supporting claims they make is actually weak or even fallacious.

Fallacy hunt turns conversations into an inane game of scoring rhetorical points.