Irrelevant Authority

The fallacy of irrelevant authority is committed when you accept without proper support for his or her
alleged authority, a person's claim or proposition as true. Alleged authorities should only be used
when the authority is reporting on his or her field of expertise, the authority is reporting on facts about
which there is some agreement in his or her field, and you have reason to believe he or she can be
trusted. Alleged authorities can be individuals or groups. The attempt to appeal to the majority or the
masses is a form of irrelevant authority. The attempt to appeal to an elite or select group is a form of
irrelevant authority.
Examples:

1. Brad Pitt was seen wearing Designer Bob's sunglasses, so they must be the best sunglasses
to wear.
2. There is nothing to be learned from the East, for Gilbert Ryle, the great British philosopher
once said, nothing but the sun rises in the East.
3. Nobody is a better judge than public opinion.
4. Pacifism is a good idea because the brilliant scientist Einstein advocated it.
5. Mom, why can't I get my tongue pierced? Everyone else is doing it.
6. Most of my friends say they stopped thinking about philosophy the minute they got through the
semester, so I know this class is worthless.
7. Everyone loves the Danger Kitty album; they must be a great band.
8. I agree with Alec Baldwin's stance on global warming. He must know what he's talking about,
being a famous celebrity and all.

Post hoc (a shortened form of post hoc, ergo propter hoc) is a logical fallacy in which one event is
said to be the cause of a later event simply because it occurred earlier. "Although two events might
be consecutive," says Madsen Pirie in "How to Win Every Argument," "we cannot simply assume that
the one would not have occurred without the other."
Why Post Hoc Is a Fallacy
Post hoc is a fallacy because correlation does not equal causation. You cannot blame your friends for
a rain delay just because every time they go with you to a ballgame it storms and play is delayed.
Likewise, the fact that a pitcher bought new socks before he pitched a winning game does not mean
that new socks cause a pitcher to throw faster.
The Latin expression post hoc, ergo propter hoc can be translated literally as "after this, therefore
because of this." The concept can also be called faulty causation, the fallacy of false cause, arguing
from succession alone or assumed causation.
Post Hoc Examples: Medicine

The search for causes of diseases is rife with post hoc examples. Not only are medical researchers
constantly seeking causes of or cures for medical maladies, but patients are also on the lookout for
anything—no matter how unlikely—that might help to alleviate their symptoms. In some cases, there
is also a desire to find a cause outside of genetics or luck that can be blamed for health or
developmental challenges.

Birds Adapt to Posted Speed Limits

Malaria
The long search for the cause of malaria was fraught with post hoc fallacies. "It was observed that
persons who went out at night often developed the malady. So, on the best post hoc reasoning, night
air was assumed to be the cause of malaria, and elaborate precautions were taken to shut it out of
sleeping quarters," explained author Stuart Chase in "Guides to Straight Thinking." "Some scientists,
however, were skeptical of this theory. A long series of experiments eventually proved that malaria
was caused by the bite of the anopheles mosquito. Night air entered the picture only because
mosquitoes preferred to attack in the dark."
Autism

During the early 2000s, the search for a cause of autism led to vaccines, though no scientific link has
been found between the administration of vaccines and the onset of autism. The time that children
are vaccinated and the time they're diagnosed do closely correlate, however, leading upset parents
to assign blame to the immunizations, for lack of a better explanation.  

Post Hoc Variation: Inflated Causality

In the inflated causality version of post hoc, the proposed idea tries to boil down a happening to one
singular cause, when in actuality, the event is more complex than that. However, the idea is not
completely untrue, which is why it's called inflated rather than just completely faulty. For example,
each of these explanations is incomplete:

 Attributing the cause of World War II to only Adolf Hitler's hatred of the Jews
 Suggesting that John F. Kennedy won the presidency over Richard Nixon exclusively because
of the debate on TV
 Believing that the cause of the Reformation was simply Martin Luther posting his theses
 Explaining that the U.S. Civil War was fought only because of the institution of slavery

Tu quoque is a type of ad hominem argument in which an accused person turns an allegation back
on his or her accuser, thus creating a logical fallacy. In the English language, the phrase generally
functions as a noun, however, it's also used attributively to modify other nouns, as in "a tu
quoque argument."
Fast Facts on Tu Quoque
Pronunciation: tu-KWO-kway
Derivation: From the Latin for "you too" or "you're another"
Also Referred to As:

 The "you too" fallacy

 The "two wrongs" fallacy
 The "pot calling the kettle black" fallacy
 The "look who's talking" fallacy
Example I
"It is clear that a tu quoque response to an accusation can never refute the accusation. Consider the
following:

 Wilma: You cheated on your income tax. Don't you realize that's wrong
 Walter: Hey, wait a minute. You cheated on your income tax last year. Or have you forgotten
about that?

How to Choose a Position for an Argument Essay

Walter may be correct in his counter-accusation, but that does not show that Wilma's accusation is
false."—From "Critical Thinking" by William Hughes and Jonathan Lavery
Example II
"Recently, we highlighted a British journalist’s story about the underside of Dubai’s startling ascent.
Some in Dubai called foul, including one writer who wants to remind Britons that their own country
has a dark side. After all, what to think of a country in which one-fifth of the population lives in
poverty?"—From "Dubai’s Rebuttal," The New York Times, April 15, 2009
Example III
"The tu quoque fallacy occurs when one charges another with hypocrisy or inconsistency in order to
avoid taking the other's position seriously. For example:

 Mother: You should stop smoking. It's harmful to your health.

 Daughter: Why should I listen to you? You started smoking when you were 16!

[Here], the daughter commits the tu quoque fallacy. She dismisses her mother's argument because
she believes her mother is speaking in a hypocritical manner. While the mother may indeed be
inconsistent, this does not invalidate her argument."

Dicto Simpliciter is a fallacy in which a general rule or observation is treated as universally

true regardless of the circumstances or the individuals concerned. Also known as the fallacy
of sweeping generalization, unqualified generalization, a dicto simpliciter ad dictum
secundum quid, and fallacy of the accident (fallacia accidentis).

Etymology
From the Latin, "from a saying without qualification"

Examples and Observations

 "I know nothing about Jay-Z because (sweeping generalization alert!) hip-hop
stopped being interesting in about 1991; I've never knowingly listened to a Neil Young
record all the way through because they all sound like someone strangling a cat (don't
they?)."
(Tony Naylor, "In Music, Ignorance Can Be Bliss." The Guardian, Jan. 1, 2008)
 "In discussing people of whom we have little knowledge, we often use dicto
simpliciter in the attempt to fix them the attributes of the groups they belong to...
"Dicto simpliciter arises whenever individuals are made to conform to group patterns. If
they are treated in tight classes as 'teenagers,' 'Frenchmen,' or 'traveling salesmen,'
and are assumed to bear the characteristics of those classes, no opportunity is
permitted for their individual qualities to emerge. There are political ideologies which
attempt to treat people in precisely this way, treating them only as members of sub-
groups in society and allowing them only representation through a group whose values
they may not, in fact, share."
(Madsen Pirie, How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic, 2nd ed.
Bloomsbury, 2015)01:02

 
5 Little Known Facts About St. Patrick's Day
  New York Values
"At the Republican presidential debate on Thursday, Senator Cruz attacked Donald
Trump, one of his rivals for the party’s nomination, by saying darkly that he represented
'New York values.'
"Asked to define the term, Senator Cruz offered a sweeping generalization for 8.5
million city dwellers.
"'Everybody understands that the values in New York City are socially liberal and pro-
abortion and pro-gay marriage,' he said. 'And focus on money and the media.'" (Mark
Santora, "New Yorkers Quickly Unite Against Cruz After 'New York Values'
Comment." The New York Times, January 15, 2016)
 Everybody Should Exercise
"'Dicto Simpliciter means an argument based on an unqualified generalization. For
example: 'Exercise is good. Therefore everybody should exercise.'
"'I agree,' said Polly earnestly. 'I mean exercise is wonderful. I mean it builds the body
and everything.'
"'Polly,' I said gently. 'The argument is a fallacy. Exercise is good is an unqualified
generalization. For instance, if you have heart disease, exercise is bad, not good. Many
people are ordered by their doctors not to exercise. You must qualify the generalization.
You must say exercise is usually good, or exercise is good for most people. Otherwise,
you have committed a Dicto Simpliciter. Do you see?'
"'No,' she confessed. 'But this is marvy. Do more! Do more!'"
(Max Shulman, The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis, 1951)
 The Stork With One Leg
"An amusing example of arguing a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid is
contained in the following story told by Boccaccio in the Decameron: A servant who
was roasting a stork for his master was prevailed upon by his sweetheart to cut off a leg
for her to eat. When the bird came upon the table, the master desired to know what had
become of the other leg. The man answered that storks never had more than one leg.
The master, very angry, but determined to strike his servant dumb before he punished
him, took him next day into the fields where they saw some storks, standing each on
one leg, as storks do. The servant turned triumphantly to his master; on which the latter
shouted, and the birds put down their other legs and flew away. 'Ah, sir,' said the
servant, 'you did not shout to the stork at dinner yesterday: if you had done so, he
would have shown his other leg too.'"

Fallacy Name:
Argumentum ad Populum

Alternate Names:
Appeal to the People
Appeal to the Majority
Appeal to the Gallery
Appeal to Popular Prejudcie
Appeal to the Mob
Appeal to the Multitude
Argument from Consensus
Argumentum ad Numerum
Category:
Fallacies of Relevance > Appeal to Authority

Explanation

This fallacy occurs any time the sheer numbers of people who agree to something is used as a
reason to get you to agree to it and takes the general form:

 When most people agree on a claim about subject S, the claim is true (normally an unstated
premise). Claim X is one which most people agree on. Therefore, X is true.

This fallacy can take on the direct approach, where a speaker is addressing a crowd and makes a
deliberate attempt to excite their emotions and passions in an attempt to get them to accept what he
is saying. What we see here is the development of a sort of "mob mentality" people go along with
what they hear because they experience others also going along with it. This is, obviously enough, a
common tactic in political speeches. 

Proper Number Usage

This fallacy can also take on an indirect approach, where the speaker is, or seems to be, addressing
a single person while focusing on some relationship that individual has to larger groups or crowds.

Examples and Discussion

One common way this fallacy is used is known as the "Bandwagon Argument." Here, the arguer
explicitly relies upon people's desire to fit in and be liked by others to get them to "go along" with the
offered conclusion. Naturally, it is a common tactic in advertising:

 Our cleaner is preferred two-to-one over the next leading brand.

 The number one movie for three weeks in a row!
 This book has been on the New York Times' bestseller list for 64 straight weeks.
 Over four million people have switched to our insurance company shouldn't you.

In all of the above cases, you are being told that lots and lots of other people prefer some particular
product. In example #2, you are even being told to what degree it is allegedly preferred over the
nearest competitor. Example #5 makes an overt appeal to you to follow the crowd, and with the
others this appeal is implied.

We also find this argument used in religion:

 Hundreds of millions of people have been Christians, devoutly following it and even dying for it.
How could that be possible if Christianity weren't true?

Once again, we find the argument that the number of people who accept a claim is a good basis for
believing that claim. But we know now that such an appeal is fallacious hundreds of millions of people
can be wrong. Even a Christian making the above argument must acknowledge that because at least
that many people have devoutly followed other religions.

The only time such an argument won't be fallacious is when the consensus is one of individual
authorities and thus the argument meets the same basic standards required of the general Argument
from Authority. For example, an argument about the nature of lung cancer based upon the published
 opinions of most cancer researchers would carry real weight and would not be fallacious like a
reliance on irrelevant authority.

Most of the time, however, this is not the case, thus rendering the argument fallacious. At best, it
might serve as a minor, supplemental feature in an argument, but it cannot serve as a substitute for
real facts and data.

Another common method is called the Appeal to Vanity. In this, some product or idea is associated
with a person or group admired by others. The goal is to get people to adopt the product or idea
because they, too, want to be like that person or group. This is common in advertising, but it can also
be found in politics:

 The most successful business people in the country read the Wall Street Journal shouldn't you
read it, too?
 Some of the biggest stars in Hollywood support the cause of reducing pollution don't you want
to help us as well?

The third form that this indirect approach takes is call an Appeal to the Elite. Many people want to be
thought of as "elite" in some fashion, be it in terms of what they know, whom they know, or what they
have. When an argument appeals to this desire, it amounts to an Appeal to the Elite, also known as
Snob Appeal.

This is often used in advertising when a company tries to get you to buy something based upon the
idea that the product or service is that used by some particular and elite segment of society. The
implication is that, if you also use it, then perhaps you can consider yourself part of that same class:

 The wealthiest citizens of the city have eaten at The Ritz for over 50 years. Why haven't you
given us a try?
 The Bentley is a car for those with discriminating tastes. If you are one of the select few who
can appreciate such a vehicle, you will never regret your decision to own one.

Also known as 'appealing to the people', this fallacy presumes that a proposition must be true because
most/many believe it to be true.

Example of Argumentum ad Populum

 Extended warranties are a very popular purchase by the consumer, so extended warranties must be good for the
consumer. The fact that something is popular has no bearing on whether it is beneficial.

 Everyone drives over the speed limit, so it should not be against the law. Just because a lot of people do something, it
does not make it the right thing to do.

The Latin term argumentum ad baculum means "argument to the stick." This fallacy occurs

whenever a person makes an implicit or explicit threat of physical or psychological
violence against others if they refuse to accept the conclusions offered. It can also occur
whenever it's claimed that accepting a conclusion or idea will lead to disaster, ruin, or harm.

You can think of the argumentum ad baculum as having this form: 

Tips to Get Over the Fear of Public Speaking

 Some threat of violence is made or implied. Therefore, the conclusion should be

accepted.

It would be very unusual for such a threat to be logically relevant to the conclusion or for the
truth-value of a conclusion to be made any more likely by such threats. A distinction should be
made, of course, between rational reasons and prudential reasons. No fallacy, the Appeal to
Force included, can give rational reasons to believe a conclusion. This one, however, might
give prudential reasons for action. If the threat is credible and bad enough, it might provide
a reason to act as if you believed it.

It is more common to hear such a fallacy in children, for example when one says "If you don't
agree that this show is the best, I'll hit you!" Unfortunately, this fallacy isn't limited to
children.

Examples and Discussion of the Appeal to Force

Here are some ways in which we sometimes see the appeal to force used in arguments:

 You should believe God exists because, if you don't, when you die you will be judged
and God will send you to Hell for all of eternity. You don't want to be tortured in Hell,
do you? If not, it is a safer bet to believe in God than to not believe.

This is a simplified form of Pascal's Wager, an argument often heard from some Christians. A
god is not made any more likely to exist simply because someone says that if we don't believe
in it, then we will be harmed in the end. Similarly, belief in a god is not made any more
rational simply because we are afraid of going to some hell. By appealing to our fear of pain
and our desire to avoid suffering, the above argument is committing a Fallacy of Relevance.

Sometimes, the threats can be more subtle, as in this example:

 We need a strong military in order to deter our enemies. If you don't support this new
spending bill to develop better airplanes, our enemies will think we are weak and, at
some point, will attack us - killing millions. Do you want to be responsible for the
deaths of millions, Senator?

Here, the person doing the arguing isn't making a direct physical threat. Instead, they are
bringing psychological pressure to bear by suggesting that if the Senator does not vote for the
proposed spending bill, s/he will be responsible for other deaths later on.

Unfortunately, no evidence is offered that such a possibility is a credible threat. Because of

this, there is no clear connection between the premise about "our enemies" and the conclusion
that the proposed bill is in the country's best interests. We can also see the emotional appeal
being used - no one wants to be responsible for the deaths of millions of fellow citizens.

The Appeal to Force fallacy can also occur in cases where no actual physical violence is
offered, but instead, just threats to one's well being. Patrick J. Hurley uses this example in his
book A Concise Introduction to Logic:
  Secretary to boss: I deserve a raise in salary for the coming year. After all, you know
how friendly I am with your wife, and I'm sure you wouldn't want her to find out what's
been going on between you and that sexpot client of yours.

It doesn't matter here whether anything inappropriate has been going on between the boss
and the client. What matters is that the boss is being threatened - not with physical violence
like being hit, but rather with his marriage and other personal relationships being destabilized
if not destroyed.