Argumentum ad populum
Argumentum ad populum ( Latin argumentum ad populum , 'Evidence for the people') describes a Red Herring in which something is asserted to be true because it is the opinion of a relevant majority of people, e.g. B. the public opinion , correspond. It is a special form of the authority argument in which a majority is used as the authority. A special case that some consider to be highly credible is the consensus gentium .
The argumentum ad populum is a classic pseudo-argument , because majorities (even all people together) can be wrong. In other words, a false fact does not suddenly come true because a majority voted for it. The argument is particularly relevant in practice in democratic theory , which ascribes majority decisions to some extent a normative character (see also legal positivism ). The principle of prevailing opinion or academic consensus is also often misunderstood in this regard , as it is linguistically suggested that decisions about science can be made by voting.
In political populism , the evidential value of the ad populum is claimed, but without ensuring that the opinion of a clear majority is actually taken as the basis. However, it is not compelling evidence. If it is treated as such, this is a fallacy .