![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Argumentum ad populum Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Argumentum ad populum |
Need a new example. The smoking example doesn't work - it would only be appropriate if lots of people believed that smoking was healthy, which patently they don't. Will try to get round to adding a new example, but I'm just writing this note in case anyone else can get there first! Toby W
Work is currently in progress on a page entitled Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared. Also currently being worked upon is Wikipedia: NPOV (Comparison of views in science) giving guidelines for this type of page. It is meant to be a set of guidelines for NPOV in this setting. People knowledgable in many areas of science and the philosophy of science are greatly needed here. And all are needed to ensure the guidelines correctly represent NPOV in this setting. :) Barnaby dawson 21:30, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The bandwagon fallacy is not made when appealing to an expert authority or a consensus of credible experts. (I am adding this line to the article.)-- Peter Kirby 23:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
This logical fallacy is known by many names ( reference) and has several redundant Wikipedia articles. I propose the following actions:
1) Rename "
Bandwagon fallacy" as "
argumentum ad populum". This requires consensus and an administrator's action.
2) Merge "
Appeal to belief" and "
Argumentum ad numerum" into "
argumentum ad populum"
Reason #1: Wikipedia:Google test
Reason #2: Article's length of existance The following article has existed since:
Please comment or vote on this proposal. Shawnc 16:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
(off topic: the Google test was strangely reminiscent of the bandwagon effect idea. Of course, the test is not a logical argument but merely done for convenient purposes)
![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Argumentum ad populum Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Argumentum ad populum |
Need a new example. The smoking example doesn't work - it would only be appropriate if lots of people believed that smoking was healthy, which patently they don't. Will try to get round to adding a new example, but I'm just writing this note in case anyone else can get there first! Toby W
Work is currently in progress on a page entitled Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared. Also currently being worked upon is Wikipedia: NPOV (Comparison of views in science) giving guidelines for this type of page. It is meant to be a set of guidelines for NPOV in this setting. People knowledgable in many areas of science and the philosophy of science are greatly needed here. And all are needed to ensure the guidelines correctly represent NPOV in this setting. :) Barnaby dawson 21:30, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The bandwagon fallacy is not made when appealing to an expert authority or a consensus of credible experts. (I am adding this line to the article.)-- Peter Kirby 23:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
This logical fallacy is known by many names ( reference) and has several redundant Wikipedia articles. I propose the following actions:
1) Rename "
Bandwagon fallacy" as "
argumentum ad populum". This requires consensus and an administrator's action.
2) Merge "
Appeal to belief" and "
Argumentum ad numerum" into "
argumentum ad populum"
Reason #1: Wikipedia:Google test
Reason #2: Article's length of existance The following article has existed since:
Please comment or vote on this proposal. Shawnc 16:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
(off topic: the Google test was strangely reminiscent of the bandwagon effect idea. Of course, the test is not a logical argument but merely done for convenient purposes)