Argument from Antiquity and Appeal to Novelty · 8:36am Dec 20th, 2012
Argument from Antiquity
We have done A in the past, therefore we should always do A.
Example A:
Ida Praposar: I'm going to attempt to grow some genetically modified potatoes. They're cow-shaped when mature!
Lojika McPhallussy: No one has ever attempted such a thing in the past. It's never going to work.
Example B:
Ida Praposar: My wife just bought a new car.
Lojika McPhallussy: And you let her? Back in the good old days, women weren't allowed to own property, so clearly you shouldn't be letting her have any now.
Usually this fallacy comes up when something new or different is proposed to people who have always done something one particular way. Because tradition alone isn't a good reason in itself, this one is always fallacious.
Appeal to Novelty
A is new, therefore you should do A.
Example A:
Ida Praposar: Apparently scientists have developed a new kind of vacuum cleaner powered by the souls of children.
Lojika McPhallussy: Great! This new vacuum cleaner must be loads better than my old one.
Example B:
Ida Praposar: Hmm... I don't think Obama is doing a very good job of running America.
Lojika McPhallussy: Don't worry, as soon as a new person gets put into the office, things will immediately get better.
This is the exact opposite of an argument from antiquity, but unlike guilt by association and appeal to authority, I didn't think they deserved separate entries. They're basically the same thing, anyway. An appeal to novelty is fallacious in the same way an argument from antiquity is, except that an appeal to novelty is arguing in favour of something newer instead of older. Keep in mind that people proposing a switch to either something newer or older aren't necessarily using this fallacy. The only time this would be a fallacy is if they use the fact that something is newer (or the fact that something is older/more traditional) as an argument in itself. Just because you have done something for a long time, it doesn't mean you should never change it. Just because something newer is proposed, it doesn't mean that you should switch to that. Antiquity and novelty are never good enough reasons in themselves to use as arguments.
Not that I'm complaining, but why? Why do this?
633517
The series on logical fallacies?
The argument to novelty is often implied. Commercials all the time emphasize "NEW!" without telling you why new is BETTER, or tell us how their device uses "the latest technology" and is made out of "space age materials", neither of which is actually an argument in favor of USING this device in lieu of the traditional method.