Appeal Authority, Antiquity, Novelty, & Money Pouch
One uses fear as proof. Unless an idea is accepted, it is argued, the consequences will be catastrophic. Hence, the idea must be accepted. Conversely, an idea cannot be true, for if it were, the implications would be devastating. Therefore, the idea must be false. One forgets that the truth may be terrible.
T. S. Eliot once said in this connection that “Humankind cannot stand very much reality.” Some can’t take truth straight but must water it down with a chaser of illusion, or deny it outright and create a fantasy world into which they escape. How many people do you know who are in denial that something awful has happened to them? They cannot accept it and become so desperate that they wind up delusional. If they’re in power, they may even infect their followers with similar madness. God help that nation! (This example would apply only if one actually did believe that one lost an election and wasn’t simply lying to hold on to power.)
This raises the question whether some human beings are even made for truth, or is truth their Medusa, whom they face at their peril. This idea is false because I couldn’t face life if it were true. Ibsen’s The Wild Duck and Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh provide interesting reflections on this question and whether truth may be too heady a brew for some or an elixir of Hell. Or my belief must be true because, without it, life would have no meaning for me. Therefore, my idea is true because it has to be true. Do some need delusions to order to survive and keep sane?
Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad verecundiam)
One tries to prove an idea by citing an authority or important person who holds it. Rather than showing that the authority holds the idea on the basis of proof, one suggests that the mere fact of the authority’s holding the idea makes it true. One ignores the fact that the authority may be wrong, may be contradicted by other authorities, may not be an authority about the idea in question, or may have later changed his or her mind.
Evolution is true because Darwin said it’s true. Evolution is false because my pastor says it’s false. His idea is true because he has a Ph.D. (because The New York Times says it’s true; look at all the famous people who have believed it).
Appeal to Antiquity (Argumentum as antiquitatem)
One argues that an idea is true because it is old. An idea’s lasting power over time need not necessarily be proof of its truth, but rather of human folly, vested interest of those in power who kept the idea alive), censorship, or political support. Those who dared to speak out against the idea in the past might have been imprisoned or executed. If an idea is true because it is old, does that mean that it was false when it was young and only became true with age?
The fallacy ignores the fact that the past might have thought for itself rather than appealed to its past; that, if alive today, the past might be the first to reject its ideas because more knowledge had accumulated over the centuries; that appealing to the past might be the supreme betrayal of the past which dared to think for itself; that if the past hasn’t taught us independence — even from itself, it has taught us nothing.
But, most of all, the past would never have wanted to be our jailer, but would have us reject what it said and have the courage to be true to our own convictions and vision of truth, and not to abuse the past as a crutch or an excuse for our own timidity. This idea is true because it’s been around for centuries.
Appeal to Novelty (Argumentum ad novitatem)
One proves that an idea is true because it’s new. Phrases like “current research proves,” “recent thinking indicates,” and “the latest theory is” reflect this fallacy when they are made to imply that past thinking on the subject is no longer true. Moreover, this argument carries the seeds of its own destruction since, by definition, this new idea will soon be superseded by one that is newer. A new theory may be based on a false premise, be an ideologically-driven polemic heralded by much hype, or embody shallow scholarship, which, compared to traditional thinking, is superficial. The newest thinking may, however, be true, but not because it is new, but because it reflects much deeper thinking on the question than had previously been done.
Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad misericordiam)
One uses pity rather than evidence to prove an idea. Though such an appeal to the emotions would be legitimate for a worthwhile cause like motivating people to help poor or starving children. In unscrupulous hands, however, it’s but an invitation for cynical manipulation of emotion for private gain. One advocates for a plan which ostensibly would help the poor and aged, while what one is selling is simply a scam which will serve only one’s own interests.
And then there’s that marvelous song from West Side Story (Romeo and Juliet Americanized) that contains those unforgettable lines: “Gee, Officer Krupke, you gotta understand. It’s just our bringin’ up-ke that gets us out of hand.” There’s nothing like the power of American musical theater to mock age-old deception.
Appeal to the Crowd (Argumentum ad populum
Get Frank Breslin’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
One tries to ingratiate oneself into the good graces of an audience to get it to like one, so that one won’t have to prove one’s case beyond offering feel-good platitudes. One flatters the audience, affirms its values, appeals to its prejudices in order to be accepted as one of its own. Having gained the trust of the audience, one hopes that one’s idea (or oneself if one is a political candidate) will be accepted without being closely examined.
If one is dealing with an audience that is desperate to be saved, one cynically exploits its vulnerability and tells it what it wants to hear. It’s the favorite gambit of political demagogues who promise the world but bring only disaster. We’ll be having more to say about this kind of person later in this series when we discuss Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic, that archetypal charlatan, con man, and Pied Piper, who lures the innocent of this world to their destruction. An intelligent group of people like you can see that I’m telling the truth.
Appeal to the Money Pouch (Argumentum ad crumenam)
One tries to secure an idea’s acceptance not on its merits, but solely on the basis of financial gain for one’s audience if it accepts one’s idea. Does one stand to make money by adopting an idea or passing a bill? For example, a legislature would receive large campaign contributions for passing legislation that could hurt public safety, poison the environment, or undermine education. Financial gain is the deciding factor rather than the bill’s soundness or the common good of the country. Congressman, if you vote for our bill, I can assure you that your friends in the Oil Industry won’t forget you at election time. Money, that most eloquent of all advocates before the bar! It is a fallacy that always has unethical implications.
Appeal to the Individual (Argumentum ad personam)
This fallacy is similar to the appeal to the money pouch, only one seeks to enlist support for an idea by appealing to a person’s ambition, vanity, or vested interests rather than money. And after you give us your political support for this bill, we’d like to show our appreciation by lobbying for you as Man of the Year!
Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad ignorantiam)
One suggests that an idea is true if it cannot be shown to be false. An idea that cannot be disproven is not necessarily true, but simply an idea that cannot be disproven — or proven. The fact that it cannot be disproven may result from the idea’s being beyond the realm of empirical verifiability. But if it can neither be proven nor disproven, why even entertain it in the first place. All one can justifiably say is that it may be true or false, which is hardly a proposition for serious discussion or debate.
Another form of the fallacy is to avalanche an audience with facts, figures, charts, graphs, and the names of authorities that supposedly support an idea or proposal, and then the speaker calls for an immediate vote to meet an immediate deadline. The audience is left with no time to think or to consider the “evidence,” which is a distortion or falsification of what is actually the case.
If something is important, it is worth serious consideration, and an audience should be given sufficient time to review the evidence, consult with experts, have hearings for public input by those who would be affected by the idea, and then have it put to a vote in two or three months. Calling for an immediate vote is simply “railroading” an idea into being accepted by a group with no time to study it, in other words — a scam. This idea is true because it can’t be proven to be false.
Appeal to Laughter (Argumentum ad auditores)
One uses humor to divert attention from the fact that one’s opponent has advanced a telling objection against one’s case. One can appear to have successfully countered the objection, whereas all one has done is to have said something witty that makes people laugh and hope that they won’t see that one has adroitly side-stepped the objection.
Fallacy of Origins or Genetic Fallacy (Argumentum ad originem)
One seeks to disprove an idea by attempting to discredit its historical origins. First, one attempts to explain how the idea arose historically from a particular historical or cultural context, which could include economic, political, psychological, and sociological factors. This is a legitimate process of historical reconstruction and is not part of the fallacy, which consists in then drawing the unwarranted conclusion that because one has explained the idea’s origin, or the circumstances within which the idea arose, one has thereby shown it to be false. Such a conclusion is indefensible for two reasons: first, the historical factors which explain the birth of an idea and that idea’s truth are two different issues; second, were these two issues the same, no idea could ever be true, since every idea emerges within a set of historical circumstances.
More specifically, were one to claim as false an idea which arose from fear and uncertainty, one would likewise have to concede that an idea which arose from joy, enthusiasm, or clinical detachment would also be false, unless one wanted to be accused of “special pleading,” or making an unjustifiable exception that would favor one’s own case. This idea is false because it arose out of fear and uncertainty thousands of years ago.
You Too, Fallacy (Tu quoque)
One attempts to minimize one’s culpability by claiming that one’s accusers are equally guilty of what one has done. Although this claim may be true, it would be irrelevant since it diverts attention from the matter at hand — that one is, indeed, guilty. For example, a young man is a heavy smoker and his father encourages him to quit because smoking will endanger his health. The son responds that his father also smokes two packs a day. “You’re right. I do,” his father says, “and now I have to suffer the consequences, but I’m only trying to save you from a similar fate.”
Frank Breslin is a retired high-school teacher in the New Jersey public school system.
