Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Changed line(s) 1,20 (click to see context) from:
->"What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right."
-->-- '''UsefulNotes/AlbertEinstein'''
!!'''Bandwagon Fallacy''':
!!! Also called:
* Fear of Loss
::A form of AppealToPopularity combined with AppealToConsequences; here, it's suggested that because something is ''becoming'' popular, it should be accepted quickly or the person being spoken to will lose out in the long run. The name comes from the classic idea of getting on the bandwagon before it leaves; in this fallacy, the fact that there are a lot of people on the bandwagon and it might leave are the ''only'' reasons given to accept, with no reason why getting on the bandwagon is actually a good idea (or, for that matter, why there ''is'' a bandwagon).
::This is referred to as ''Fear of Loss'' in sales; a salesman will claim that he's only allowed to sign up a certain number of people to a fantastic deal and has already got most of his quota for today, so if the person he's speaking to doesn't act they stand to lose out.
::There are also times this argument is valid, such as when there are what economists call [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect network effects]]. In brief, if the value of a good or service changes based on the number of users, then pointing out the number of using it could be valid. For example, when telephones were adopted, their value increased with every new telephone added to the network. If business software is used by many companies, being ubiquitous is a selling point. If no one else uses an instant messenger, it's useless, but if everyone uses it, it's more valuable to the end user. If all of one's friends use a specific social networking site and you want to use social media, it makes sense to follow your friends. If a cell phone company allows unlimited calls between two members of their networks, the number of clients they have and their demographics are both legitimate concerns. If most counties and companies are using a particular shipping container, rail-road gauge, or standard of measure, there's good reasons to adopt the same standards.
----
!Examples:
* A standard technique for infomercials: "The next fifty callers" will get the deal being offered, or the offer is only good "until midnight!" despite the fact that the infomercial is going to run for the next two hours, and tomorrow, and the day after that... It's not at all uncommon for the infomercial host to overtly admit they're using this fallacy by saying something like "You don't want to miss out!" or "Don't be the only one in your neighborhood who doesn't have <whatever it is>."
* Franklin Mint and other so-called "collectibles" companies make a point of stating that there are only a limited number of whatever gewgaw they're selling, and that "When they're gone, they're gone forever." Often the limit is a number of days that the item will be produced (for instance '300 pressing days' on commemorative coins, or '500 firing days' on decorative plates) with the hope being that the would-be buyer won't realize how many hundreds of thousands of coins can be minted in 10 months or plates can be fired in 16 months.
----
-->-- '''UsefulNotes/AlbertEinstein'''
!!'''Bandwagon Fallacy''':
!!! Also called:
* Fear of Loss
::A form of AppealToPopularity combined with AppealToConsequences; here, it's suggested that because something is ''becoming'' popular, it should be accepted quickly or the person being spoken to will lose out in the long run. The name comes from the classic idea of getting on the bandwagon before it leaves; in this fallacy, the fact that there are a lot of people on the bandwagon and it might leave are the ''only'' reasons given to accept, with no reason why getting on the bandwagon is actually a good idea (or, for that matter, why there ''is'' a bandwagon).
::This is referred to as ''Fear of Loss'' in sales; a salesman will claim that he's only allowed to sign up a certain number of people to a fantastic deal and has already got most of his quota for today, so if the person he's speaking to doesn't act they stand to lose out.
::There are also times this argument is valid, such as when there are what economists call [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect network effects]]. In brief, if the value of a good or service changes based on the number of users, then pointing out the number of using it could be valid. For example, when telephones were adopted, their value increased with every new telephone added to the network. If business software is used by many companies, being ubiquitous is a selling point. If no one else uses an instant messenger, it's useless, but if everyone uses it, it's more valuable to the end user. If all of one's friends use a specific social networking site and you want to use social media, it makes sense to follow your friends. If a cell phone company allows unlimited calls between two members of their networks, the number of clients they have and their demographics are both legitimate concerns. If most counties and companies are using a particular shipping container, rail-road gauge, or standard of measure, there's good reasons to adopt the same standards.
----
!Examples:
* A standard technique for infomercials: "The next fifty callers" will get the deal being offered, or the offer is only good "until midnight!" despite the fact that the infomercial is going to run for the next two hours, and tomorrow, and the day after that... It's not at all uncommon for the infomercial host to overtly admit they're using this fallacy by saying something like "You don't want to miss out!" or "Don't be the only one in your neighborhood who doesn't have <whatever it is>."
* Franklin Mint and other so-called "collectibles" companies make a point of stating that there are only a limited number of whatever gewgaw they're selling, and that "When they're gone, they're gone forever." Often the limit is a number of days that the item will be produced (for instance '300 pressing days' on commemorative coins, or '500 firing days' on decorative plates) with the hope being that the would-be buyer won't realize how many hundreds of thousands of coins can be minted in 10 months or plates can be fired in 16 months.
----
to:
-->-- '''UsefulNotes/AlbertEinstein'''
!!'''Bandwagon Fallacy''':
!!! Also called:
* Fear of Loss
::A form of AppealToPopularity combined with AppealToConsequences; here, it's suggested that because something is ''becoming'' popular, it should be accepted quickly or the person being spoken to will lose out in the long run. The name comes from the classic idea of getting on the bandwagon before it leaves; in this fallacy, the fact that there are a lot of people on the bandwagon and it might leave are the ''only'' reasons given to accept, with no reason why getting on the bandwagon is actually a good idea (or, for that matter, why there ''is'' a bandwagon).
::This is referred to as ''Fear of Loss'' in sales; a salesman will claim that he's only allowed to sign up a certain number of people to a fantastic deal and has already got most of his quota for today, so if the person he's speaking to doesn't act they stand to lose out.
::There are also times this argument is valid, such as when there are what economists call [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect network effects]]. In brief, if the value of a good or service changes based on the number of users, then pointing out the number of using it could be valid. For example, when telephones were adopted, their value increased with every new telephone added to the network. If business software is used by many companies, being ubiquitous is a selling point. If no one else uses an instant messenger, it's useless, but if everyone uses it, it's more valuable to the end user. If all of one's friends use a specific social networking site and you want to use social media, it makes sense to follow your friends. If a cell phone company allows unlimited calls between two members of their networks, the number of clients they have and their demographics are both legitimate concerns. If most counties and companies are using a particular shipping container, rail-road gauge, or standard of measure, there's good reasons to adopt the same standards.
----
!Examples:
* A standard technique for infomercials: "The next fifty callers" will get the deal being offered, or the offer is only good "until midnight!" despite the fact that the infomercial is going to run for the next two hours, and tomorrow, and the day after that... It's not at all uncommon for the infomercial host to overtly admit they're using this fallacy by saying something like "You don't want to miss out!" or "Don't be the only one in your neighborhood who doesn't have <whatever it is>."
* Franklin Mint and other so-called "collectibles" companies make a point of stating that there are only a limited number of whatever gewgaw they're selling, and that "When they're gone, they're gone forever." Often the limit is a number of days that the item will be produced (for instance '300 pressing days' on commemorative coins, or '500 firing days' on decorative plates) with the hope being that the would-be buyer won't realize how many hundreds of thousands of coins can be minted in 10 months or plates can be fired in 16 months.
----
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
->"What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right."
-->-- '''UsefulNotes/AlbertEinstein'''
-->-- '''UsefulNotes/AlbertEinstein'''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 16 (click to see context) from:
* Franklin Mint and other so-called "collectibles" companies make a point of stating that there are only a limited number of whatever gewgaw they're selling, and that "When they're gone, they're gone forever." Often the limit is a number of days that the item will be produced (for instance '300 pressing days' on commemorative coins, or '500 firing days' on decorative plates) with the hope being that the would-be buyer won't realize how many hundreds of thousands of coins can be minted in 10 months or plates can be fired in 16 months.
to:
* Franklin Mint and other so-called "collectibles" companies make a point of stating that there are only a limited number of whatever gewgaw they're selling, and that "When they're gone, they're gone forever." Often the limit is a number of days that the item will be produced (for instance '300 pressing days' on commemorative coins, or '500 firing days' on decorative plates) with the hope being that the would-be buyer won't realize how many hundreds of thousands of coins can be minted in 10 months or plates can be fired in 16 months.months.
----
----
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 4,5 (click to see context) from:
:: Appeal to Popularity combined with Appeal to Consequences; here, it's suggested that because something is ''becoming'' popular, it should be accepted quickly or the person being spoken to will lose out in the long run. The name comes from the classic idea of getting on the bandwagon before it leaves; in this fallacy, the fact that there are a lot of people on the bandwagon and it might leave are the ''only'' reasons given to accept, with no reason why getting on the bandwagon is actually a good idea (or, for that matter, why there ''is'' a bandwagon).
to:
::A form of AppealToPopularity combined with
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
::There are also times this argument is valid, such as when there are what economists call [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect network effects]]. In brief, if the value of a good or service changes based on the number of users, then pointing out the number of using it could be valid. For example, when telephones were adopted, their value increased with every new telephone added to the network. If business software is used by many companies, being ubiquitous is a selling point. If no one else uses an instant messenger, it's useless, but if everyone uses it, it's more valuable to the end user. If all of one's friends use a specific social networking site and you want to use social media, it makes sense to follow your friends. If a cell phone company allows unlimited calls between two members of their networks, the number of clients they have and their demographics are both legitimate concerns. If most counties and companies are using a particular shipping container, rail-road gauge, or standard of measure, there's good reasons to adopt the same standards.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 4,5 (click to see context) from:
:: Appeal to Popularity combined with Appeal to Consequences; here, it's suggested that because something is ''becoming'' popular, it should be accepted quickly or the person being spoken to will lose out in the long run. The name comes from the classic idea of getting on the bandwagon before it leaves; in this fallacy, the fact that there are a lot of people on the bandwagon and it might leave are the ''only'' reasons given to accept, with no reason why getting on the bandwagon is actually a good idea.
to:
:: Appeal to Popularity combined with Appeal to Consequences; here, it's suggested that because something is ''becoming'' popular, it should be accepted quickly or the person being spoken to will lose out in the long run. The name comes from the classic idea of getting on the bandwagon before it leaves; in this fallacy, the fact that there are a lot of people on the bandwagon and it might leave are the ''only'' reasons given to accept, with no reason why getting on the bandwagon is actually a good idea.
idea (or, for that matter, why there ''is'' a bandwagon).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 7 (click to see context) from:
----
to:
!Examples:
* A standard technique for infomercials: "The next fifty callers" will get the deal being offered, or the offer is only good "until midnight!" despite the fact that the infomercial is going to run for the next two hours, and tomorrow, and the day after that... It's not at all uncommon for the infomercial host to overtly admit they're using this fallacy by saying something like "You don't want to miss out!" or "Don't be the only one in your neighborhood who doesn't have <whatever it is>."
* Franklin Mint and other so-called "collectibles" companies make a point of stating that there are only a limited number of whatever gewgaw they're selling, and that "When they're gone, they're gone forever." Often the limit is a number of days that the item will be produced (for instance '300 pressing days' on commemorative coins, or '500 firing days' on decorative plates) with the hope being that the would-be buyer won't realize how many hundreds of thousands of coins can be minted in 10 months or plates can be fired in 16 months.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
::This is referred to as ''Fear of Loss'' in sales; a salesman will claim that he's only allowed to sign up a certain number of people to a fantastic deal and has already got most of his quota for today, so if the person he's speaking to doesn't act they stand to lose out.
to:
::This is referred to as ''Fear of Loss'' in sales; a salesman will claim that he's only allowed to sign up a certain number of people to a fantastic deal and has already got most of his quota for today, so if the person he's speaking to doesn't act they stand to lose out.out.
----
----
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
There are two different fallacies on this page. Moving Appeal to Consequences to its own page.
Changed line(s) 6,30 (click to see context) from:
::This is referred to as ''Fear of Loss'' in sales; a salesman will claim that he's only allowed to sign up a certain number of people to a fantastic deal and has already got most of his quota for today, so if the person he's speaking to doesn't act they stand to lose out.
!!'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences Appeal To Consequences]]''':
:: The truth or falsity of a statement is decided by the positive or negative consequences of it.
-->If global warming is occurring ''and'' is caused by humans, then we are obligated to do something to stop or slow it.
-->The most effective way to do so is for businesses to cut down on carbon emissions.
-->The short term costs of cutting carbon emissions would be economically devastating.
-->Q.E.D: Global Warming is either not occurring, not caused by humans, or both.
:: Or, conversely,
-->If global warming is occurring ''and'' is caused by humans, then we are obligated to do something to stop or slow it.
-->The most effective way to do so is for businesses to cut down on carbon emissions.
-->The long-term economic benefits of stopping global warming will be enormous.
-->Q.E.D.: Global warming is both occurring ''and' caused by humans.
:: Ain't it fun when you can use the same fallacy and essentially the same argument and "prove" diametrically opposite conclusions?
!!! Examples:
* Creationists like this one. In fact, even if Hitler's policies had been informed by a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species book]] that was actually banned under his rule, and the systematic slaughter of 14 million people could in any way be considered to be ''natural'' selection, this would have no bearing on the scientific validity of evolutionary theory.
* Lord Denning actually used this as a reason to quash the Birmingham Sixs' appeal against their conviction. If they were innocent, he argued it means that the police must have lied and forged confessions. If the police really did lie, this would be really bad for society. Therefore, they must be guilty.
!!! Looks like this fallacy but isn't
* When the question isn't about the truth or falsity of a statement, but is instead about whether or not to follow a particular course of action.
!!'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences Appeal To Consequences]]''':
:: The truth or falsity of a statement is decided by the positive or negative consequences of it.
-->If global warming is occurring ''and'' is caused by humans, then we are obligated to do something to stop or slow it.
-->The most effective way to do so is for businesses to cut down on carbon emissions.
-->The short term costs of cutting carbon emissions would be economically devastating.
-->Q.E.D: Global Warming is either not occurring, not caused by humans, or both.
:: Or, conversely,
-->If global warming is occurring ''and'' is caused by humans, then we are obligated to do something to stop or slow it.
-->The most effective way to do so is for businesses to cut down on carbon emissions.
-->The long-term economic benefits of stopping global warming will be enormous.
-->Q.E.D.: Global warming is both occurring ''and' caused by humans.
:: Ain't it fun when you can use the same fallacy and essentially the same argument and "prove" diametrically opposite conclusions?
!!! Examples:
* Creationists like this one. In fact, even if Hitler's policies had been informed by a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species book]] that was actually banned under his rule, and the systematic slaughter of 14 million people could in any way be considered to be ''natural'' selection, this would have no bearing on the scientific validity of evolutionary theory.
* Lord Denning actually used this as a reason to quash the Birmingham Sixs' appeal against their conviction. If they were innocent, he argued it means that the police must have lied and forged confessions. If the police really did lie, this would be really bad for society. Therefore, they must be guilty.
!!! Looks like this fallacy but isn't
* When the question isn't about the truth or falsity of a statement, but is instead about whether or not to follow a particular course of action.
to:
::This is referred to as ''Fear of Loss'' in sales; a salesman will claim that he's only allowed to sign up a certain number of people to a fantastic deal and has already got most of his quota for today, so if the person he's speaking to doesn't act they stand to lose out.
!!'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences Appeal To Consequences]]''':
:: The truth or falsity of a statement is decided by the positive or negative consequences of it.
-->If global warming is occurring ''and'' is caused by humans, then we are obligated to do something to stop or slow it.
-->The most effective way to do so is for businesses to cut down on carbon emissions.
-->The short term costs of cutting carbon emissions would be economically devastating.
-->Q.E.D: Global Warming is either not occurring, not caused by humans, or both.
:: Or, conversely,
-->If global warming is occurring ''and'' is caused by humans, then we are obligated to do something to stop or slow it.
-->The most effective way to do so is for businesses to cut down on carbon emissions.
-->The long-term economic benefits of stopping global warming will be enormous.
-->Q.E.D.: Global warming is both occurring ''and' caused by humans.
:: Ain't it fun when you can use the same fallacy and essentially the same argument and "prove" diametrically opposite conclusions?
!!! Examples:
* Creationists like this one. In fact, even if Hitler's policies had been informed by a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species book]] that was actually banned under his rule, and the systematic slaughter of 14 million people could in any way be considered to be ''natural'' selection, this would have no bearing on the scientific validity of evolutionary theory.
* Lord Denning actually used this as a reason to quash the Birmingham Sixs' appeal against their conviction. If they were innocent, he argued it means that the police must have lied and forged confessions. If the police really did lie, this would be really bad for society. Therefore, they must be guilty.
!!! Looks like this fallacy but isn't
* When the question isn't about the truth or falsity of a statement, but is instead about whether or not to follow a particular course of action.out.
!!'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences Appeal To Consequences]]''':
:: The truth or falsity of a statement is decided by the positive or negative consequences of it.
-->If global warming is occurring ''and'' is caused by humans, then we are obligated to do something to stop or slow it.
-->The most effective way to do so is for businesses to cut down on carbon emissions.
-->The short term costs of cutting carbon emissions would be economically devastating.
-->Q.E.D: Global Warming is either not occurring, not caused by humans, or both.
:: Or, conversely,
-->If global warming is occurring ''and'' is caused by humans, then we are obligated to do something to stop or slow it.
-->The most effective way to do so is for businesses to cut down on carbon emissions.
-->The long-term economic benefits of stopping global warming will be enormous.
-->Q.E.D.: Global warming is both occurring ''and' caused by humans.
:: Ain't it fun when you can use the same fallacy and essentially the same argument and "prove" diametrically opposite conclusions?
!!! Examples:
* Creationists like this one. In fact, even if Hitler's policies had been informed by a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species book]] that was actually banned under his rule, and the systematic slaughter of 14 million people could in any way be considered to be ''natural'' selection, this would have no bearing on the scientific validity of evolutionary theory.
* Lord Denning actually used this as a reason to quash the Birmingham Sixs' appeal against their conviction. If they were innocent, he argued it means that the police must have lied and forged confessions. If the police really did lie, this would be really bad for society. Therefore, they must be guilty.
!!! Looks like this fallacy but isn't
* When the question isn't about the truth or falsity of a statement, but is instead about whether or not to follow a particular course of action.
