Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The philosopher Irving Copi defined argumentum ad populum differently from an appeal to popular opinion itself, [19] as an attempt to rouse the "emotions and enthusiasms of the multitude". [19] [20] Douglas N. Walton argues that appeals to popular opinion can be logically valid in some cases, such as in political dialogue within a democracy. [21]
For instance, the appeal to poverty is the fallacy of thinking that someone is more likely to be correct because they are poor. [25] When an argument holds that a conclusion is likely to be true precisely because the one who holds or is presenting it lacks authority, it is an "appeal to the common man". [26]
Other theories argue that grievances have a primarily sociocultural rather than an economic basis. [3] For example, the cultural backlash thesis argues that right-wing populism is reaction to the rise of postmaterialism in many developed countries, including the spread of feminism, multiculturalism, and environmentalism. [168]
Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat) – an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position. [ 92 ] Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because ...
An example is a probabilistically valid instance of the formally invalid argument form of denying the antecedent or affirming the consequent. [ 12 ] Thus, "fallacious arguments usually have the deceptive appearance of being good arguments, [ 13 ] because for most fallacious instances of an argument form, a similar but non-fallacious instance ...
Argumentum ad lazarum or appeal to poverty is the informal fallacy of thinking a conclusion is correct solely because the speaker is poor, or it is incorrect because the speaker is rich. It is named after Lazarus , a beggar in a New Testament parable who receives his reward in the afterlife.
[2] [3] [4] One participates in argumentum ad baculum when one emphasizes the negative consequences of holding the contrary position, regardless of the contrary position's truth value—particularly when the argument-maker himself causes (or threatens to cause) those negative consequences. It is a special case of the appeal to consequences.
Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion. [3] Circular reasoning is closely related to begging the question, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing. [4]