“Everyone knows…” means “What’s wrong with you for not agreeing?” This is an example of the often-heard “bandwagon” fallacy. Last week I explained this ubiquitous derailer of good conversations, and offered a number of examples. This week I’ll suggest ways to get conversations back on track when they are derailed by this error.

How to Point This Fallacy Out

So what do you do when encountering with the Bandwagon fallacy? I have three sequential suggestions.

 

1. Challenge the First Premise

Though never stated this formally, there are two premises in play in the bandwagon fallacy:

 

                Premise 1: All X believe Y

                Premise 2: If all X believe Y, Y must be true

                Conclusion: Therefore, Y is true 

First, I suggest asking why the person thinks everyone believes this. In other words, surface the first premise, and show that it is false. In doing so, you are helping him get out of the “groupthink” underlying this fallacy that is so common today.

There is a fancy phrase for this: the “sociology of knowledge.” People often believe something for no other reason than because “everyone else believes it.” In some cases the view they have adopted is the only view they have ever heard, or the view their teachers or professors told them was the only “respectable” position to take.

The problem is that this is just not true. There are many who hold an alternative view, but the person has just never been made aware of this. Even if he knows others hold a different view, that view has often been characterized in such a way as to make it seem absurd (by use of the Straw Man fallacy). As a result, he has not given the alternative view(s) a fair hearing.

An example of this is the debate concerning “Intelligent Design” (ID) over the past several decades. This is the view that, given the complexity of living organisms that cannot be explained by scientific laws or pure chance, an intelligent designer is the best explanatory cause for these effects. In the words of the BioLogic Institute: “…life appears to have been designed because it really was designed.”

My purpose here is not to endorse or refute ID, but rather to use this as an example of how a healthy conversation has been derailed by the bandwagon fallacy. Yet some have been so socialized into “groupthink” on this issue that this illustration will cause much concern and consternation!

Materialists (those who have a predetermined commitment to nothing existing outside the material world) have widely misrepresented the ID position, and concluded “No one (who is rational) believes this.” Therefore, today there is extensive groupthink on this issue, such that no one can even raise the possibility of ID without being banished from the “club.” This is the sociology of knowledge: one is socialized into understanding what one can and cannot think, question, and believe.

The way to challenge this first premise is simply to ask a number of important questions. First, ask him if everyone really believe this. He may truly believe everyone agrees with him (he may have been so socialized that he has no knowledge of contrary beliefs). In this case, it is important to show there are some who believe otherwise, and they may also have good reasons for their belief.

Note at this point you are not arguing his view is incorrect and the alternative is correct. You are simply helping him see that he has bought into a faulty premise—that everyone believes what he believes, and no one can have good reasons to believe anything else. In short, you are (gently) challenging his intellectual arrogance, which shuts down true research, dialogue and discovery more quickly than anything else.

He may be willing to grant that no, there are some who take a different view (thereby admitting the first premise is false). I’d press further and ask who he has read and respects who takes the alternative view. I’d ask what their arguments are, and why he doesn’t buy those arguments. In short, I’d want to see (and help him see) whether he has given the other view a fair hearing before rejecting it.

 If he has bought into groupthink he will not be able to represent well the other view, or give the reasons some take that view. He has blindly accepted what others have told him: “Think this way…or else!” The conversation might go something like this:

Bill: Everyone knows Intelligent Design is bogus!

You: Does everyone really believe this? Is there no one who thinks it makes sense?

Bill: Yes, everyone believes this (at least everyone who has any knowledge of biology).

You: What about the many scientists with Ph.Ds in biology and related fields who are ID proponents, like Dr. Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University?

Bill: Who? I didn’t know anyone with a Ph.D. believed in ID…

 

-OR-

 

Bill: Everyone knows Intelligent Design is bogus!

You: Does everyone really believe this? Is there no one who thinks it makes sense?

Bill: Well, not everyone. I do know of a few Ph.D.s in biology who take that view.

You: Who?

Bill: Michael Behe, for one.

You: What exactly does he believe about ID? And what are his arguments in favor of his view? And where do you find his arguments unconvincing?

By listening carefully to his answer you will be able to tell if he really understands the alternative view and arguments for it, and has good reasons to reject that view in favor of his own.

Unfortunately, in far too many cases I find the person either builds a straw man of the opposing view, or characterizes it well but has just written it off without considering the arguments in its favor (due to groupthink).

I encourage university students to (respectfully) ask these questions of their professors when they get a whiff of this fallacy, along these lines:

Professor: Since the Enlightenment Substance Dualism has been universally rejected.

Student: Professor, I respect your scholarship in this area. It would help me to know what you believe the three best arguments for Substance Dualism are, and why you don’t think these arguments work.

All too often the professor is not able to answer such questions. This surfaces the “sociology of knowledge”—the view is not rejected because it is untrue (shown by reason and data), but rather because it has become unpopular among her group of friends or colleagues. On the other hand, an honest scholar will be quick to offer the strongest arguments against her view, and then give a reasonable rationale for rejecting these arguments.

But what if he keeps insisting that everyone believes this? Move on to the second step in the conversation.

2. Challenge the Second Premise

Even if everyone does believe this, why should we think that makes it true? In other words, surface the second premise and ask him to explain why he believes this.

The conversation might go something like this:

Bill: We all know ethics are culturally determined.

You: Even if everyone believes that, what does that have to do with whether it is true?

Bill: Because if everyone believes it, it must be true!

You: Haven’t there been times when everyone believed something that turned out to be false?

Bill: Of course there have.

You: So why think in this case that just because everyone believes ethics are culturally determined, it must be true?

This will help Bill see the fallacy of Premise Two: “If everyone believes X, X must be true.” If he is reasonable he will agree this is a false assumption, and the conversation can move to the third step.

 

3. Focus on the Facts, Not Those on the Bandwagon

At this point you have both agreed that not everyone believes what he believes, and even if everyone did, that wouldn’t make it so. This allows you to both get the discussion back on track. Now you can agree to talk about the evidence and reasons to take your view or his view. For instance:

• Is there good evidence that God exists?

• Is there proof that Jesus claimed to be God and rose from the dead?

• What are the best arguments for and against the inerrancy of the Bible?

• Why should one embrace or reject Substance Dualism?

• Does the majority of data support or contradict ID?

• Are there good reasons to believe moral absolutes exist?

These are good, meaty, healthy conversations to have, and will lead to truth! But only after the Bandwagon fallacy has been identified and corrected.

 

Your Turn…

I invite you to take a moment and think about how you might apply this if you friend says this to you:

All modern people believe Jesus was nothing more than a good moral teacher. Why do you insist on hanging on to this unscientific myth about Jesus being God?

           

Conclusion

Only by being able to spot and diffuse the Bandwagon fallacy can we hope to have meaningful conversations about important matters. And only by having such meaningful conversations can we hope to discover truth. And only by discovering and living by what is true can we hope to flourish and promote the common good.

There is yet another common fallacy that often derails healthy conversations. I’ll discuss it next week. Until then, grace and peace.

 

For further reading, see Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks’ Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking