Too often I hear this logical fallacy and it is frustrating. At one point, I thought (falsely) that autistics were less prone to falling for it, but evidence now speaks clearly to the contrary. The reality is that regardless of the area of life, the neurotype, or the developmental level of the human (barring early infancy etc), appeals to popularity is perhaps one of the most prevalent (dare I say it, popular) arguments used to sway an individual to the speaker’s view. And while seemingly harmless when it involves movie, books, and sports, it is dangerous when it comes to socially significant behaviors.
It is ultimately an argument of the tyrannical majority or a minority. It ignores evidence in in lieu of opinion. More dangerous still is it’s application alongside other logical fallacies. The Texas Shooter fallacy, for example, is based on the idea that someone “shoots” at a target, then only points out the holes closest to the bull’s eye. A similar fallacy, called cherry picking”, has the speaker only presenting data that fits their argument.
So why is this important in the context of behaviorism, let alone important in any other way?
Radical behaviorism is a science of observation and description of that observation, is why. Behavior analysts do not diagnose. We collect data and make decisions off of that data. The research behind our decisions is peer reviewed and is typically based off of hundreds, thousands, and even millions of data points. B. F. Skinner’s initial work and his follow up work especially had millions of data points. And before you assume that this is a appeal to popularity of data, the science also changes based off of new data. If it didn’t then Applied Behavior Analysis would not be a science. Which isn’t to say that individual’s within the science are not susceptible to this or any other logical fallacy. We are. BUT, the purpose of the scientific approach is to strive to overcome fallacious reasoning. This is why understanding that radical behaviorism is a science of description and observation. Without that essential piece the science is more prone to being diagnostic in its nature.
Being a diagnostic science is neither good nor bad. The medical sciences are a perfect example of an effective diagnostic science. A medical doctor would not be very effective if they could not diagnose, for example. Behavior analysis, however, is founded on being a descriptive science. In effect, we observe and describe what we see, then we take data on what we see and analyze that data. We then describe what we see from the data.
Some sciences come up with a theory then seek to find data to prove that theory. This is problematic
The Truth About Lemmings