<< Sydney Drinking Skeptically + LKS Podcast | Home | Today's favourite crossword clue >>

Argumentum ad Populum, No True Scotsman, Cognitive Dissonance

C: Christianity must be true. It has nearly 2 billion followers

A: So what? That's just argumentum ad populum. Just because lots of people believe it, doesn't mean it's true

C: Does so! [leaves in a huff]

----- some time later -----

C: Catholics aren't real christians

A: I thought you said earlier than christianity had two billion followers?

C: I did. So?

A: If catholics aren't christians, then it doesn't. Dummy.

C: *wha?*

 

 

(no, really. I've seen these two arguments from the same "apologists" within short periods of time. Cognitive dissonance writ large)

posted @ Monday, October 25, 2010 3:18 PM

 
 
 

Comments on this entry:

# re: Argumentum ad Populum, No True Scotsman, Cognitive Dissonance

Left by Dave The Happy Singer at 10/25/2010 3:29 PM
Gravatar
Another angle I like is pointing out that if only Protestants are 'True Christians™', then there are three times* as many Muslims as TCs, and therefore Islam is the Truthier faith.

___
*Source: A cursory glance at the always-excellent Adherents.com (http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html)

# re: Argumentum ad Populum, No True Scotsman, Cognitive Dissonance

Left by David Ould at 10/25/2010 4:17 PM
Gravatar
Is it not also cognitive dissonance to (correctly) point out one failure to argue logically but then to employ in the same breath another (the ad hominem "dummy")?

Just saying, if you want to be consistent... ;-)

# re: Argumentum ad Populum, No True Scotsman, Cognitive Dissonance

Left by Jason at 10/25/2010 4:20 PM
Gravatar
It's only ad hominem if it's irrelevant to the point being argued.

Such as

"obviously C's argument is not true. Look at him, he's butt-ugly. Also, he eats insects."

I feel that C's being a dummy is relevant to the validity of the cited conversations

:-P

# re: Argumentum ad Populum, No True Scotsman, Cognitive Dissonance

Left by Dave The Happy Singer at 10/25/2010 4:59 PM
Gravatar
Umm, that's not an ad hominem argument, it's an insult:

"You're a dummy, therefore your argument is invalid" is an ad hom.

"Your argument is invalid and you're a dummy" is just mild invective, and in this case, justified.

# re: Argumentum ad Populum, No True Scotsman, Cognitive Dissonance

Left by Jason at 10/25/2010 5:00 PM
Gravatar
^-- what Dave said

# re: Argumentum ad Populum, No True Scotsman, Cognitive Dissonance

Left by David Ould at 10/28/2010 8:45 AM
Gravatar
oh ok, it was only invective and an insult so it's perfectly acceptable? ;-)

# re: Argumentum ad Populum, No True Scotsman, Cognitive Dissonance

Left by Jason at 10/28/2010 9:15 AM
Gravatar
In terms of the overall validity of the argument, yes. In terms of politeness, maybe not. But no-one said you have to be polite to be correct ;-)

# re: Argumentum ad Populum, No True Scotsman, Cognitive Dissonance

Left by David Ould at 10/29/2010 12:42 PM
Gravatar
well no, of course not. It just tends to win you more of an audience. Unless, of course, you're just preaching to the (un)converted ;-)
Comments have been closed on this topic.
«December»
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
24252627282930
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930311234
 
Vaccination Saves Lives: Stop The Australian Vaccination Network
 
 
Say NO to the National School Chaplaincy Program
 
 

The Blog of Jason Brown, Geek, Atheist, Skeptic, Musician, Mountain Biker, Climber, Curmudgeon.

About
Article Categories
Archives
Post Categories
Image Galleries
Drunk in a Bar in Old Sydney Town
Ego Surfing Central
Friends, Romans, Countrymen
In Vino Veritas
On Not Believing
Shit you need to know
Trapped on a Ledge a Hundred Feet Up
Vaccine Advocacy
Syndication:

RSS