Popular Opinion

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Ad populum; majority rules.

Description

The advocate asserts that because the great majority of people in general agree with his or her position on an issue, he or she must be right. A variant is where the advocate asserts that he or she must be right because a particular group (rather than the population as a whole) agrees with the advocate.

Example

Alison Granules is a "concerned mother" taking part in a televised "Hypotheticals" debate on decriminalisation of Heroin use. She asserts: "People are not stupid. The great majority of voters will not stand for the provision of free heroin to users by government authorities. Everyone knows you can't cure addiction by supplying addicts with addictive drugs."

Dr Dennis Pontificatum (the spokesperson for the Society of Physicians on drug policy) interjects: "Yes, but the great majority of drug and alcohol experts would take the opposite view. Who are you going to believe?"

Comment

In the example above, both Alison and Dennis are attempting to validate their positions by claiming support from majority opinion. In Alison's case, she is asserting the value of general, non-specialist, "democratic" opinion in the general population. Perhaps underlying her case is the assumption that "commonsense" opinion is of more value than the views of "so called" experts.

Dennis is attempting to trump her appeal by citing the opinions of a group which he presumes has more credibility and insight than the general population. His underlying assumption is that the majority views of specialists are of more value than the "ignorant masses".

Either way, Appealing to Popular Opinion does not provide any evidence for that opinion other than, "Some other people believe what I'm saying is true". If that's the best evidence for a claim, then it's probably not much of a claim. When Appeals to Popular Opinion are made in arguing a point, the seeker after truth needs to be skeptical about majority views – whether those views are from the general population or a selected, expert group with "insider knowledge".

It is understandable to place greater weight on expert opinion on any topic. This heuristic will work more often than not, but if solely relied upon, may lead the seeker after truth very badly astray. In many fields of enquiry or policy-making for example, the experts are almost always entirely self-selected. That is, they choose to seek a career in (say) child protection, drug policy, defence studies or social welfare because of a pre-existing set of strongly held values. They may use their position of influence to ensure that their views prevail in the relevant areas of social policy.

We should have a systematic bias to favour the opinion of experts over non-experts. We should also take this into account and attempt to independently verify the expert opinion where possible. At the very least we should expect experts to explain why they hold their position, rather than allowing them to assert it, relying on our deference to yield them their point. Seekers after truth will not meekly accept the validity of an expert opinion. They will demand evidence and a rational justification.

Other examples

Did you know that the supplement industry is now worth over $50 bn world wide annually? This just goes to show the importance of having a daily multivitamin.

Money = Truth!

A quick post on Popular Opinion. Deborah Smith of the SMH writes about Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst's new book, Trick or Treatment:

Edzard Ernst, the world's first professor of complementary medicine, is on a mission. He wants people to know the truth about the "potions, pills, needles, pummelling and energising" that make up the multibillion-dollar global alternative medicine industry.

She also interviewed Marc Cohen, a professor of complementary medicine at RMIT University in Melbourne. He engages in special pleading and throws about a few factoids, but the one thing that really got me was this:

He also points out that Australians spend four times as much out of their own pockets on alternative medicines as on pharmaceuticals. "Obviously people vote with their wallets. So it's likely they do it because they're receiving a benefit."

Which Smith follows with:

But it is not an argument that persuades Singh and Ernst.

That's because appealing to Popular Opinion is not an argument at all. Here's Cohen's "argument" again, but this time about gambling:

"Australians spend more money a week on gambling than they do on petrol or on alcohol. Obviously people vote with their wallets. So it's likely they do it because they're receiving a benefit."

Given the similarities between playing the pokies and B. F. Skinner's pigeons, the only thing they'll receive is a bout of superstitious behaviour. (The same analogy applies to most of the complementary therapies too, I'd suggest.)

Of course, another possible benefit is to the group. The same article I link to points out:

An average of 12% of state and territory revenue comes from gambling.

I don't buy into the whole group selection thing however...
_________________
Hat tip Kylie S at Podblack Cat.

Michael Crichton article on the perils of consensus science

For the record: I am a global warming skeptic, not a global warming denier. I subscribe to the precautionary principle, and I produce a tiny fraction of one percent of the Carbon Dioxide produced by the bad faith maestro, Al Gore. (Not a proud boast - after all, who doesn't?)

An extract from the Chrichton article appears below. The complete article may be found here, and is worth reading. Particularly for those interested in unusual examples of the Popular Opinion Fallacy.

In recent years, much has been said about the post modernist claims about science to the effect that science is just another form of raw power, tricked out in special claims for truth-seeking and objectivity that really have no basis in fact. Science, we are told, is no better than any other undertaking. These ideas anger many scientists, and they anger me. But recent events have made me wonder if they are correct. We can take as an example the scientific reception accorded a Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist.

The scientific community responded in a way that can only be described as disgraceful. In professional literature, it was complained he had no standing because he was not an earth scientist. His publisher, Cambridge University Press, was attacked with cries that the editor should be fired, and that all right-thinking scientists should shun the press. The past president of the AAAS wondered aloud how Cambridge could have ever "published a book that so clearly could never have passed peer review." )But of course the manuscript did pass peer review by three earth scientists on both sides of the Atlantic, and all recommended publication.) But what are scientists doing attacking a press? Is this the new McCarthyism-coming from scientists?

Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was "rife with careless mistakes." It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocaust denier. The issue was captioned: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist." Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?

When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn't enough, he put the critics' essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down.

Further attacks since have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That's why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That's why the facts don't matter. That's why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He's a heretic.

Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I'd see the Scientific American in the role of mother church.

Is this what science has become? I hope not. But it is what it will become, unless there is a concerted effort by leading scientists to aggressively separate science from policy. The late Philip Handler, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, said that "Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference-science and the nation will suffer." Personally, I don't worry about the nation. But I do worry about science.

Breaking Breakfast News: Popular Opinion is Popular

While idly drinking a cup of coffee this morning, I was watching a morning infotainment program on television. My purpose in watching the program was not to catch up on Hollywood gossip (naturally) but to catch the latest weather report. The program featured a phone-in poll on whether the morning newspaper should have published cartoons featuring Mahommed. The issue was characterised as "free speech" versus "sensitivity to other cultures" - and some concern about mayhem and violence.

The program gave two telephone numbers which viewers could call to register a "yes" or "no" to the question of whether the Courier-Mail should have published the cartoons. The "vote" was running strongly in favour of the "yes" option. The emerging trend in the phone-in poll was given some weight by the presenters. Giving undue weight to such "data" is an example of the Popular Opinion Fallacy. In this particular case, the data might or might not reflect actual popular opinion (phone-in polls are notoriously unreliable and are completely invalid as a sampling technique). As to the "correctness" of public opinion - all that can be said about popular opinion is that popular opinion is popular!

All Hail the Fallacy Meister

In today's Australian Phillip Adams manages to pack seven fallacies into a single short sentence. The sentence: My generation grew up believing we wouldn't grow up (see link above for full article).

If we play "spot the fallacy" with this sentence, we can make the case that is contains (in context) Factoid Propagation, Observational Selection, Popular Opinion, Simple-Minded Certitude, Special Pleading, Stacking the Deck and Unfounded Generalization.

Phillip seems to be getting more adept and skilled at generating fallacies as he ages. In decades past, a tally of seven fallacies on a "spot the fallacies" bingo card would not be reached until towards the end of one of his columns, and even a few years ago, at least a paragraph of the Master's text would be required. The question arises: "How is it possible for a single person to be so prolific in generating fallacies, and further, how can he become even better with advancing age?"

The answer I think lies in Phillip's increasing self-obsession and ego centrism. To Phillip, his own experience is the experience of all others, and his own views about anything and everything are the only views which could possibly be held by any right-thinking person. So he feels that he merely has to assert a belief, and that is the end of argument. By definition he is right. His beliefs are truths. So if he says that his generation grew up believing that they wouldn't grow up, then it is so. Others of his generation who don't have such a recollection are deluded, or they are liars. Phillip has written, and it is so.

Examples of Popular Opinion

The advocate makes an unwarranted appeal to popular opinion (e.g. "most people agree that...") in support of a proposition.

• Money = Truth!
• Pithy and ironic aphorisms on some fallacies in thinking
• Breaking Breakfast News: Popular Opinion is Popular

For a comprehensive and considered written commentary on Popular Opinion (and other fallacies) - see The skeptic's field guide to spotting fallacies in thinking - Humbug!