Argumentum ad antiquitatem

Argument to tradition, argument from antiquity

Fallacious arguments to tradition assert that a belief is correct solely because the belief is ancient or is supported by tradition. This fallacy is the reverse of an equally fallacious argumentum ad novitatem (argument for novelty).

It is certainly true that some reasonable beliefs have persisted through time, yet old beliefs must be assessed on their merits not on their longevity alone. There may be extenuating circumstances that explain the persistence of an unfounded ancient belief. Such a belief may persist because it has emotional appeal or because it is a key element in a system of belief that has both emotional appeal and organizational support.

The Greeks believed that the sun was pulled across the sky by a horse-drawn chariot, yet a person insisting upon such an idea today would be widely regarded as certifiable. The old Greek idea was abandoned long ago partly because scientific awareness intervened, but also because other religious belief systems supplanted Greek mythology.

Because Christian belief has persisted to this day for historical reasons, Christians fail to see that they commit this fallacy whenever they argue that long-standing belief that Christ was the son of God ensures that Christ was indeed the son of God. In fact, some would also erroneously argue that the fact that the Son of God story has persisted, while the Sun Chariot myth disappeared, indicates that Christ was indeed the son of God. Such an argument is a false dichotomy because it ignores more likely explanations for the persistence of the Son of God myth. (The false dichotomy, in the mind of many Christians runs, "either you acknowledge that Jesus was the son of God or you are incorrect.")

The Greek myth held that the sun was the god Helius (later Apollo) who was a son of the Titans Hyperion and Theia. Helius was the brother of the goddesses Selene (the moon) and Eos (the dawn). In early versions, bulls drew Helius' chariot, whereas the horses Pyrois, Aeos, Aethon, and Phlegon drew the chariot in later mythology. (Perhaps the bulls quit because they got tired of all the bull****!).

(The image is a modified section of this painting.)

Quo Vadis?
...section index...

Argumentum ad novitatem

Argument for novelty

Argumentum ad novitatem is the fallacy of asserting that something is better simply because it is newer than something else. This fallacy is the reverse is the opposite of the argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy.

This fallacy is typically applied to new technologies, where new innovations might indeed be an improvement on the old. The folding bike in the foreground, for example, would be an improvement on the classical frame if the only consideration were transportability in a car's trunk. If the aim were merely to move somewhat faster than walking pace, then roller blades would fit more easily into a car's trunk. (Besides, roller blades a cheaper than the $500 that the bike would cost.) However, if you wanted to cycle more quickly along a road, then the classic configuration would clearly prove a better choice.

While it is easy to visualize the relative merit of bicycle technologies, other claims are not so easily assessed. The novely fallacy can provide appeal for rehashed ideas that have been formulated as though they are new 'revelations' – intelligent [sick] design theory is merely eighteeth-century theologian Paley's old blind watchmaker argument. Paley's argument for design by a creator has been gussied up to appeal to those of strong religious convictions and inadequate understanding of science.

Quo Vadis?
...section index...