"Argumentum ad populum" or "argumentum ad numerum"

[Hitetlen]

These ever polular “arguments” keep popping up, despite having been refuted “ad nauseam”. They usually go hand-in-hand with a generous amout of “ad hominem” attacks. (Lots of “ad”-s in this post )

From the thread: “The Ontological Argument”:
Mike O:

And you, Mr. Hitetlen, with the supreme intellectual superiority that you can wave over the heads of the others around here, might rightly boast of knowing the truth. Clearly, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, John Paul II, St. Maximilian Kolbe, and the whole pantheon of saints, Church doctors, famous theologians, giants of ethical and moral philosophy, and believers have merely misled themselves throughout the long centuries. They were joking around; you’ve outed the grand conspiracy.

Why I could not from the outset see that your notion of what should be taken “seriously” outweighs 2,000 years of prayer and study escapes me.

Maybe it’s time to head back to the shrine you surely must have erected to the brain you, like many atheists, worship as deity.

From the thread: “Why is disbelief a sin?”:

thistle:

So are you contending that everyone who believes in God is stupid, including the world leaders, scientists, teachers, intellectuals etc etc??

**

thistle:

So scientists, intellectuals, world leaders, normal folks like the posters are all mistaken but you The Prince of Arrogance are correct and not mistaken. Why don’t you grow up. You pride is making you blind.

*It is more than obvious that these arguments are inspired by outright hostility. That would not be a problem if they were not so blatantly false in their “proof”.

Let’s put these fallacies to rest.

The “arguement ad populum” (or “argumentum ad numerum”) asserts that because some concept is believed by many people, it somehow should be beyond questioning. Sometime (especially after challenged) they draw back to a slightly different position and say that because this concept is believed by “intelligent, educated and learned people” the concept should not be doubted. Some other time they drop the bar even further, and say that it is reasonable to believe something, again because many (intelligent and educated) people also believe it.

Maybe the last kind can be defended to some minor extent, but its relevance is dubious. Everything - no matter how false it has been - was believed at one time or another by educated people (educated in their respective times). It is always ONE person who dares to doubt the accepted dogma, and he is usually chastised for daring to do so.

Example #1: Not too long ago an Australian doctor asserted that stomach ulcer is caused by a bacterial infection and can be cured with antibiotics. The uproar among the physicians was unanimous, they called him a charlatan (among other similarly “endearing” terms). But he proved his assertion, and the critics admitted their fault. So: the overwhelming majority of professional physicians were wrong, and the sole challenger was correct.

Example #2: Marilyn vos Savant (who is indeed a very smart lady) had a very interesting mathematical puzzle in her weekly column. She gave the correct solution and the proverbial substance really hit the fan. Literally thousands of professional mathematicians (many with doctorates) wrote angry letters, demanding that she correct her “stupid” mistake. Needless to say, she was right, and the challengers were wrong.

There are many more examples of this. Every time a previously accepted dogma is challenged, some people are upset, because most of them are scared of change, scared of having their established worldview collapse.

Conclusion: it is usually reasonable to assume that something that has been around for a long time is correct. No question about that. Mostly, accepted views have been substantiated to a certain degree, at least when it comes to science.

But that is not a good enough reason to stick to the “accepted” ways and denounce someone, just because he or she dares to challenge the dogma.

 

[awfulthings9]

And should anyone want examples of red herring or straw man arguments, which are also common falacies, feel free to do a search on Hitetlen and read through some of his previous posts.

 

[Della]

But, none of this says that YOU are right, though, does it.

Ergo, no one knows. And if no one knows, so what?

I feel a lot of heat but I ain’t seeing a lot of light.

 

[Catholic2003]

Hitetlen:

Example #2: Marilyn vos Savant (who is indeed a very smart lady) had a very interesting mathematical puzzle in her weekly column. She gave the correct solution and the proverbial substance really hit the fan. Literally thousands of professional mathematicians (many with doctorates) wrote angry letters, demanding that she correct her “stupid” mistake. Needless to say, she was right, and the challengers were wrong.

There were thousands of angry letters, but they were not all from professional mathematicians. There were less than half a dozen Ph.D. mathematicians who wrote letters against her solution.

P.S. This was the “Monty Hall” problem involving whether you should switch doors after a non-prize door had been revealed.

Edited to correct (from Wikipedia, if that is wise): After this problem’s solution was discussed in Marilyn vos Savant’s “Ask Marilyn” question-and-answer column of Parade magazine in 1990, vos Savant estimates 10,000 readers including several hundred mathematics professors wrote in to declare that her solution was wrong.

I was thinking of the letters from Ph.D. mathematicians that had actually been printed in her column.

 

[Thal59]

Ah-Hah, Hitetlen. Here you are! Thought you would get away from me? Just kidding, buddy. I could nit-pick on almost everything you have said, but there is no point to that. Let me stick to just a few thoughts.

Hitetlen:

It is more than obvious that these arguments are inspired by outright hostility.

Naturally. You go onto a Catholic website and attempt to prove to everyone that there is no God because there is no solid empirical evidence of Him, and you are surprised by their reaction? Consider yourself lucky that you were not born in ancient Rome or Egypt. Denying the divinity of the emperor or pharoah was the quickest way to an early grave.

Hitetlen:

That would not be a problem if they were not so blatantly false in their “proof”.

Let’s put these fallacies to rest…

Simply because you have not accepted the proof does not mean the evidence is blatantly false. You have put no fallacies to rest. We cannot prove to you that God exists, and you cannot prove to us that He does not. Millions of people supporting the existence of God does not make it so, just as millions of atheists denying the existence of God does not make it so either.

Where God is concerned, nothing can be proven or disproven, scientifically speaking. But what if we were to compare science to faith. In nearly two millenia, billions of people have accepted and loved Jesus. What Jesus and the apostles taught two millenia ago, is taught the same today. But in those same 2,000 years, science has flip-flopped on the very shape of the earth itself! Science has changed its mind thousands of times regarding thousands of different subjects.

Now if constancy means anything, what Jesus taught is more valid than what science teaches. You see, Hitetlen, Jesus has stood the test of time; unchanging… whereas time constantly changes science.

You put too much into science, Hitetlen. I, on the other hand, cannot put enough into God.

Thal59

 

[Hitetlen]

Thal59:

Naturally. You go onto a Catholic website and attempt to prove to everyone that there is no God because there is no solid empirical evidence of Him, and you are surprised by their reaction? Consider yourself lucky that you were not born in ancient Rome or Egypt. Denying the divinity of the emperor or pharoah was the quickest way to an early grave.

Oh, I am not complaining about the treatment here. Most of the posters are very polite, just as I treat them in a polite manner. Respectful disagreement is the most I can expect, and more often than not, I actually get it. Furthermore, I was not complaining about the hostility of those quoted posts. I can understand that they feel threatened in their worldview.

What I was complaining about is their method of trying to assert their arguements.

Thal59:

Simply because you have not accepted the proof does not mean the evidence is blatantly false. You have put no fallacies to rest. We cannot prove to you that God exists, and you cannot prove to us that He does not. Millions of people supporting the existence of God does not make it so, just as millions of atheists denying the existence of God does not make it so either.

I think you misunderstand me. The method of asserting that something is worthy just because many people believe it - is false.

Thal59:

Where God is concerned, nothing can be proven or disproven, scientifically speaking. But what if we were to compare science to faith. In nearly two millenia, billions of people have accepted and loved Jesus. What Jesus and the apostles taught two millenia ago, is taught the same today.

This is the kind of arguement with which I do not quarrel. You use your faith as an epistemological tool, and stick to it. Fine, I am quite comfortable with that. I would not use it, but that is your way, and I accept it.

Thal59:

But in those same 2,000 years, science has flip-flopped on the very shape of the earth itself! Science has changed its mind thousands of times regarding thousands of different subjects.

Yes, indeed, and that is the strength of science. Without those “flip-flops” there would be no Internet, no computers, no medical science, we would still use simple implements to carve out a meager living, toiling from sunrise to sunset. You use all the wonderful results of science every day of your life, and still denounce it. Why?

Edited to add:

Indeed science does not “create” your love for your spouse or the downtrodden of the Earth. But it does give you more time you can spend with yout spouse, and gives you more tools to alleviate the problems of poverty.

Thal59:

Now if constancy means anything, what Jesus taught is more valid than what science teaches. You see, Hitetlen, Jesus has stood the test of time; unchanging… whereas time constantly changes science.

There, this reminds me of another wonderful quote: “There are two kinds of fools. One of them says: this is old and therefore good. And the other kind says: this is new and therefore better.”

The age of propositions does not lend credence to their validity, just like the new “stuff” is somethimes good, and sometimes bad.

Thal59:

You put too much into science, Hitetlen. I, on the other hand, cannot put enough into God.

Thal59

That is the difference between us, and it leads to respectful disagrement.

 

[Hitetlen]

awfulthings9:

And should anyone want examples of red herring or straw man arguments, which are also common falacies, feel free to do a search on Hitetlen and read through some of his previous posts.

You probably thought during typing: “Now I gave it to the effing, dirty atheist!”. I can just visualize the smug, self-righteous grin on your face and I see you giving a pat on your own shoulder. Not a pretty sight.

 

[awfulthings9]

Hitetlen:

You probably thought during typing: “Now I gave it to the effing, dirty atheist!”. I can just visualize the smug, self-righteous grin on your face and I see you giving a pat on your own shoulder. Not a pretty sight.

Not at all. I just notice that you have a habit of throwing stones when your own house is of glass. Your posts are littered with logical fallacies. If you wanted to pick on Catholic posters for their own, you should have at least admitted that you make them yourself. My post was an attempt to point this out.

One could make the same comments about self-righteousness regarding your post, which points out the logical errors of the Catholic posters. Consider your own post. You wrote: “There are many more examples of this. Every time a previously accepted dogma is challenged, some people are upset, because most of them are scared of change, scared of having their established worldview collapse” The fact that you stereotype those who are upset as being “scared” shows that you seem to feel you have everyone else figured out. If this isn’t self-righteous, my friend, then I don’t know the definition of the word well enough to have made a habit of displaying it.

I didn’t though, because I didn’t form any image of you typing with a “smug, self-righteous grin on your face”. Perhaps we visualize that which we most detest about ourselves.

 

[doomhammer]

Could anybody say that sight is not a sense because blind people exist?
Could anybody say that human reason does not exist because of unreasonable people?
Could anybody say that God does not exist because of atheists?