Common Logical Fallacies (vii)

An appeal to popularity is also known as an appeal to the majority. But, is also a well known fact that the majority is not always right. Therefore it is not sound logic to say "the majority of scholars say your argument or position is wrong and therefore you are wrong." Yet, I have had this argument made to me many times in my life on bible interpretations of mine which are a minority view. The Appeal to the Majority fallacy is also known as the Bandwagon Fallacy.

Let us look at a bible text where this logical fallacy was used.

46 “No one ever spoke the way this man does,” the guards replied. 47 “You mean he has deceived you also?” the Pharisees retorted. 48 “Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? 49 No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law—there is a curse on them.” (John 7: 46-48)

Here the Pharisees used several argumentative fallacies. First, they appealed to popular opinion among the Pharisees. Since Jesus was rejected by the large majority of Pharisees, ergo, he must not be the Messiah. That is the argument. It is in this syllogistic form:

1. The Messiah will be received as such by the majority of Pharisees.

2. Jesus was not received by the majority of Pharisees.

3. Therefore, Jesus is not the Messiah.

The argument also makes use of the "appeal to authority" fallacy. The Pharisees were of the rulers in Israel, the authorities, and since they do not, with few exceptions, accept the claims of Jesus, therefore the claims of Jesus are false. 

Another fallacy in the above text is seen when the Pharisees say that the "mob" who do believe in Jesus cannot be correct because they "know nothing of the law" and because "there is a curse on them." That is an ad hominem fallacy. We also see how they were guilty of the fallacy of "begging the question," which we will discuss later. But, there were people who did know the law as experts and yet who did believe in Jesus such as Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, and Saul of Tarsus (who became Paul and who was known as a Pharisee of Pharisees). Further, many Gentiles who did not know the law of Moses believed in Jesus. And, the accusation that the believing mob were cursed and therefore could not recognize the Messiah when he came is fallacious because 1) there was no proof offered that the believing crowd were in fact cursed, and 2) there was no proof that anyone who was cursed was unable to recognize the Messiah. 

It is interesting that Paul actually argued that the many were wrong about Jesus, so that if you were in the majority you were wrong. (I Cor. 1: 26) Jesus also said that the majority, or many, walk the broad way that leads to death while few walk the strait and narrow way that leads to life. Therefore if you choose which way to walk based on where the majority are walking, then you will be on the wrong path. (Matt. 7: 13-14)

Oftentimes this appeal to the majority is seen when someone justifies an action by saying "everyone else is doing it." Kids often say this to parents who are trying to change the minds of their parents who have forbidden a certain activity. 

Wrote the Apostle Paul:

"At my first defense no one stood with me, but all forsook me. May it not be charged against them. But the Lord stood with me and strengthened me..." (II Tim. 4: 16-17 nkjv)

Here the majority were in the wrong. In fact it was a super majority. Yet, the fact that Christ stood with Paul showed that the majority was wrong on this occasion.

Another example where the majority of bible translators were wrong in a particular translation is this verse:

"Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." (Matt. 11: 11 kjv)

Most translations give the word "least" for the Greek term. "Least" is a superlative. But, it is not so in the Greek, but is rather a comparative word, and a few translations therefore use the word "less" rather than "least." In a posting on this point (See here) I cited Dr. J. R. Graves who wrote:

"The term, mikros, is here translated as an adjective in the superlative degree, though it has not this form in the Greek, but the comparative, and, if used as an adjective here, should be translated "less;" but this does not, in the least, remove the difficulty. To render it "least" the translators are compelled to translate the comparative degree as a superlative, and nothing is thereby gained. If it can be claimed that one degree of comparison is used for another in this place, why not as well, and far better, claim that mikros is used adverbially, qualifying "is," and not any person or class of persons, and the more so, when the sense positively demands this construction? Admit its adjective form, but give it an adverbial signification, and it will then read: "Notwithstanding he that is later in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." 

 

"The Herald preceded the king. Christ was manifest to Israel later in point of time than John; therefore, I understand him to say, that while John was greater than any man who had preceded him, nevertheless, he himself was greater than John."

If this corrected translation is not right, then we are forced to say that John the Baptist was greater than even Jesus, who was also born of a woman. But, it is right, and the corrected translation makes it clear that by "he who is lesser or later" Christ intends himself. Thus, the majority of translators are wrong.

Appeal to common belief is another way of arguing by appealing to the majority. It is not the same thing as arguing from what is called "common sense" or from what is universally recognized as true. The fact is, many "common beliefs" are errors. Many are the result of what is called "group think." 

Group Think is a phenomenon that occurs when a group of people makes decisions that are not rational or in their best interest. The bandwagon effect, on the other hand, is the tendency for individuals to conform to the group's opinions or behaviors from peer pressure or from fear of being an oddball. 

We see this kind of fallacious reasoning in cults. I saw in the Hardshell Baptist cult especially, but have seen it in other groups, both in theology and in politics. Many Hardshells took views on certain texts or bible subjects because this was the majority opinion of the cult. To keep in good with the cult one had to not "rock the boat" by taking a different view. In the Hardshell cult I was pressured to accept the common view of most Hardshells and 1) deny that the story of the rich man and Lazarus described what happens to the saved and lost when they die, and 2) deny that Satan or other angels fell from the third heaven, etc. 

AI Overview on defining "appeal to authority fallacy" says:

"An "appeal to authority fallacy" occurs when someone uses the opinion of a supposed authority figure as the primary evidence to support a claim, without providing sufficient reasoning or evidence, essentially arguing that something must be true simply because someone considered an expert said so, even if that expert is not qualified in the specific area being discussed." 

Of course, just because a so-called expert states a supposed fact does not make it true, for the simple reason that not all experts are right. We need to be careful when in debate our opponent says "the experts say" or "the scholars say," etc. Whether an expert is true or not must be determined by the logical proofs or factual evidence given in support of the argument, idea, or proposition. A good rebuttal would be to quote from other experts who disagree with the expert being cited and given as proof. This would then bring the debate back to what were the arguments on each side, to the logos, for deciding which, if any, expert was correct. 

We cannot be lazy in finding out the truth on a given question in debate. Some Christians believe things simply because they trust their priest, bishop, or pastor, or some other person. They reason in their minds this way:

1) My bishop knows what is right or wrong on bible subjects

2) My bishop says A is the correct view on bible subject B

3) Therefore A is the correct view.

Some in the Roman Catholic church think the Pope cannot err in doctrine and so they just say "I believe whatever the pope says is right." But, this is unreasonable. Even Peter, their supposed first pope, was not right on everything. His conduct was hypocritical in regards to affiliation with Gentiles, even in regards to believing Gentiles, and so the apostle Paul had to rebuke him. (See Gal. 2: 11) Peter also, during the arrest and trial of Jesus, said "I know not the man." (Matt. 26: 74)

Again, AI gives us this overview on what is meant by "appeal to tradition":

"An "appeal to tradition fallacy" occurs when someone argues that a belief or practice is correct simply because it has been done for a long time, essentially saying "we've always done it this way" and using that as the sole justification without considering if it's still relevant or beneficial in the current context; it's a logical fallacy that relies on the age of a tradition rather than its merit." 

"Appeal to tradition (also known as argumentum ad antiquitatem, appeal to antiquity, or appeal to common practice) is a common fallacy. In this fallacy, an idea is claimed to be right because it is the way it was often done in the past. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way"."

We certainly do see this kind of fallacious reasoning in the bible and coming from the Sadducees and Pharisees. I also saw it when I was a Hardshell Baptist. I also recently saw it in our new vice president. I like J.D. Vance. He is from my hometown of Butler county Ohio. He lived in Middletown where my father lived nearly all his life. I also lived there when I got out of high school and went to work as a real estate broker in Middletown before moving to North Carolina in 1976. I have also read his book "Hillbilly Elegy." In many ways his ancestry is like mine, his family being immigrants from Kentucky as mine were. Many people in Ohio moved there from Kentucky during both world wars to find jobs. His family were not Catholics in their religion but Protestant evangelicals. 

But, recently, I read where he became Roman Catholic and his reason was that "the Catholic church is the oldest." Well, that is not a good reason to become Catholic. That is an example of appeal to tradition, and perhaps also an appeal to the majority, or an appeal to authority. Also, error is as old as the truth, even older in some places and contexts. 

Next let us see how this was true about the former example among the Jewish leadership in the days of Christ.

Jesus frequently criticized the Pharisees for upholding certain traditions like excessive hand-washing before meals, even when it meant neglecting more important aspects of the law like caring for the poor. 

"Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, 4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) 5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” 6 And he said to them,“Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ 8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” 9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and,‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)— 12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.” (Mark 7: 1-13)

Clearly Jesus saw the fallacious reasoning of the Jewish leaders in their appeals to tradition. Something is not necessarily right because it is an old practice or belief nor is it right because it is practiced or believed by lots of people.

I also see this same type of reasoning by some Hardshell Baptists and Landmark Baptists. These believe, after the manner of the Catholics, that a church is not a legitimate church unless it has a proper genealogy or ancestry ecclesiastically speaking. Unless your church was constituted by a previous mother church, one that was orthodox, your church is not valid. You must be a link in the chain of valid churches and that chain must go back to the days of the apostles. That is an example of the fallacy of appeal to tradition.

I also saw it in their minor or tertiary beliefs and practices. If you did not follow these traditions, you were espied and judged to be suspect and kept at arm's reach. With these folks any kind of innovation or change from prior tradition is rejected simply for being not in keeping with tradition. We also see this fallacy at work in groups like the Amish.

 

Of course, there is a valid and biblically authorized tradition. Many call this "apostolic tradition." Of this Paul wrote:

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." (II Thess. 2: 15 nkjv)

This shows that all traditions are not bad. Some are good. But, they are traditions that are kept not because they are old or popular, but because the tradition is grounded in the oracles of God. The Sabbath was a tradition among the Jews but it was not valid as a practice because it was a tradition, but vise versa, it was a tradition because it began to be practiced because it was commanded by God in the holy scriptures. Keeping the Lord's Supper is an old tradition, but we don't defend keeping it for that reason but rather because it was ordained to be done by the Messiah himself.