1086
Israel war
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2024
1086 points (97.1% liked)
People Twitter
10375 readers
1128 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major celebrity, figure or any politician. https://web.archive.org/save is an option. Archive.is is no longer recommended because they remove/alter content.
- If a tweet (or similar) makes a statement of fact, either mark it as "satire" in the body or provide the original source link backing up the statement
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
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:
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.
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 , 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 , 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.