Examination Of Logical Fallacies: Argument By Consensus

Argument by consensus

is a fallacy known by many names. The latin version of this fallacy is: Argumentum ad populum. As the name suggest it is a fallacy that validates something, out of how popular that something is. It "reasons" that something is true because many (enough) say it is true. Or vice versa: That something is false because there is consensus about it.

Identity:

Person 1: Makes a claim (proposition) "y"
Person 1: Justifies the truth of the claim to be validated through consensus.
Y is true because these people all agree it is true.

Example #1

Pretty much everyone lies every now and then. Clearly lying is perfectly acceptable

Example #2

Everyone that went to school with that guy will also agree he is totally insane

Example #3

The prior renters had no problems with the roof falling apart. Surely the fault must be your own

Example #4

Maybe it is not the best way to use violence against non violent law offenders, but it is the majoritys will afterall

Example #5 and illustration:

Since we structured all western systemes after the will of the people, it is clear for all, that what is true, is what we agree upon. Therefore let us join in one big circle and agree that we are liniar circles! After all, that is how reality works right?

Example #6

Most poeple would think you are nuts for suggesting that voting is a logical error.

Example #7

Using the life line: 'Ask the audience' in the TV show 'Who Wants to be a millionare', always produces the correct answer.

Premis 1:

Using consensus as a premis for a conclusion, forces us to produce truth from an incorrect source: Man. The argument by consensus require that: What the majority wants to be true, always is true. This forces what ever is, to become something else (what there is consensus about) and thereby leaving its identity according to the will of those who agreed.

Premis 2:

A contradiction is produced when we try and test to see if we can create changes in that which is (truth), by agreeing upon what is true.

Read more about the laws of correct thinking

Illustration:

No matter what. The individual does not pocess powers to become authority over truth. This fact does not change ever - Even if the individual agrees upon the fantazied "fact", that "he" with other individuals, can decide what is true or not, if enough just were to agree with him. - Imagine what would happen if we take this concept and then people agreed upon: that they no longer could agree upon such things.

Causation:

The target(s) of the argument by consensus are lured into the perception, that "y" is true by the authority of the majority (whatever that number may be subjectly recognized as).

Combined with a false dilemma a trained manipulator (caster) can induce the belief that:

1. The target(s) must choose between something that he otherwise never would (the false dilemma).
2. The very actions that were fabricated in step 1. are then justified by consensus, bending and forming actions of the target(s) under the influence of the manipulator.

Illustration:

This error in thought has the same pattern, as to which a justification of a gang rape could be evoked. It is the will of the majority afterall.

An argument by consensus is a way for a majority to crush a minority, under disguise of being a right, because enough said so.

Effect(s):

Local: The effect of a an argument by consensus embedded in how we think (specialized):

An argument by consensus lures the target(s) into believing that in this particular instance, it is true that the power of consensus, makes something true. The target(s) will be prone to certain forms of manipulation, often associated with whatever their authority figures told them to accept.

E.g. - The "leaders" (politicians) of the world are having a meeting, to discuss whether global warming is true or not - Whilst the illustration above (gang rape) would be too extreame to go undetected.

Global: The effect of a an argument by consensus embedded in how we think (generalized):

While under the influence of a global form of the fallacy: Argument by consensus - The target(s) mental state render them acceptable to the idea, that whenever there is consensus, there is truth.

A note on the argument by consensus and slavery

Throughout time many forms of slavery has existed and still does today. In those societies it is necessary for the ruling class to portray themselves as rightfully so.

When the individual's rights to his life, his products of labour or the right to defend his rights, is taken by violence, a state of slavery between individuals is generated in society. A perfected form of slavery (violence between individuals) is when such a state of violence is legalized and agreed upon by the masses/the consensus giving body.

Slaves does not exist in reality even though there is consensus about an individual is a slave. A slave is a mental construct. Only the individual exist in reality.

A group of individuals can easily act wrong and treat another individual evil, by aligning their actions with the sickening ideology that they themselves are masters over others. Whereafter all masters agree that evil is no longer evil, when inflicted upon a lesser being, such as a "slave". Consensus about such mental abominations has been reached many times in recorded history.

Legal (perfected) slavery would not be possible to install in a society potent to defend itself intellectually. It would simply be rejected after being identified as hardcore psychopathy and unfathomable depts of psychosis.

More fallacies:
The straw man
Appeal to authority
The false dilemma