• Farid
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    But you did.

    This isn’t an argumentum ad populum fallacy because the argument isn’t based solely on the number of people or organizations making the claim; it’s based on the authority and credibility of these entities.

    Whether you agree or disagree with those entities and question their credibility is a separate matter, but it’s not argumentum ad populum. For the same reason the following isn’t:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, and the National Institutes of Health all claim that smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease, so it must be true.

      • Farid
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        And the organizations from the post must have their evidence for making their claims. Otherwise they wouldn’t be considered reputable.

        But that doesn’t matter, because you still misused the fallacy.

        • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          1 month ago

          considered reputable.

          there are people consider fox news to be “reputable” so that point of yours means approximately nothing. facts are what matter, and the israel problem is contentious because no one can back up their own definition of “genocide” with facts

          you still misused the fallacy.

          i didn’t, but whatever.

          • Farid
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            I like how you completely ignored the part where I said “that doesn’t matter” and argued the wrong point anyway.

            Whether you consider them reputable or not doesn’t matter. Those are THE organizations (some of them, anyway) that decide these things. They are THE experts in the field. If a person were to say “a lot of people/organizations say <some fact in field x>, so it must be true”, that would be argumentum ad populum. But since they are saying “a lot of <authorities/experts in the field x> claim <some fact in the field x>, so it must be true”, that’s not a fallacy, that’s a valid appeal to authority.

            CDC, WHO, NIH, etc. could all be wrong, they could’ve interpreted the “scientific evidence” incorrectly and come to the wrong conclusions. But we know that this is an unlikely scenario for so many independent experts in the field to reach a consensus on something that is wrong. Therefore, our best bet is to trust their conclusions.

            To reiterate, whether those organizations are right or wrong doesn’t matter, because they are not a random majority—they are the organizations you’re supposed to rely on in this situation; it’s a valid appeal to authority. Hence, it’s not a fallacy, let alone argumentum ad populum.

            • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              you’re right. all that to say: we’re sending money, weapons, ammo, and war machines to israel. as we’ve always done. as we’ll always do. but yea. you got me!