Argumentum Ad Aetatem
The fallacy of Ad Aetatem
Fallacies are a form of reasoning that is not compatible with logic and can therefore cause an argument to become invalid. There are several well-known fallacies that are both commonplace and often picked up on. These irrational lines of reasoning can include, Ad Hominin, The Gambler’s Fallacy, Straw manning as well as many other invalid arguments. Perhaps the most dangerous type of fallacy is Ad Hominin, which can allow people to attack people instead of their arguments or attack the arguments due to the people that have held that belief.
An example of this would be stating that Person A is wrong because Person A is always wrong. This line of reason does not actually consider the evidence of the Person A’s argument, and instead claims that Person A’s argument is wrong because the person making the argument is Person A.
Therefore, the situation outlined in the above paragraph would be considered a fallacy. The opposite is also true, claiming that an argument is correct because of who made it is also a flaw and, by extension, a fallacy.
This leads me to make a troubling discovery, and that discovery is the overuse of ideals such as, ‘You’re too young to understand,’ or ‘You’re too young to hold an opinion on this matter’. This logic is fundamentally flawed, it is no worse than saying that someone is wrong because of their race, marital status, sex etc.
So, what is troubling about this?
How widespread it is. Even on philosophy sites I can link at least three occasions in the last 24 hours where I have seen that one is ‘young,’ and ‘lacking understanding,’ because of this. But the existence of this within a philosophy forum does not even worry as much as the potential this creates for a lack of critical thinking and reasoning, due to the prevalence this has in the real-world. Almost every child remembers a time in which a parent has said, ‘you’re too young to understand.’ A belief such as this is dangerous, it can create an atmosphere in which a child believes that critical reasoning and questioning existence is not important. This is dangerous because it can mean that in the future that person may be easily manipulated, or tricked, by governments, corporations, or individuals.
I could not find a current accepted term for this fallacy so I believe we should refer to it as Ad Aetatem which is short for Argumentum Ad Aetatem which in English is Argument from age. (After writing this post I found some evidence suggest the term 'wisdom of the ancients', but I believe argument from age is more common.
[b]Sometimes, parents may claim that this fallacious reason is justified, for example,
Child: Why can’t I follow strangers at the park?
Parent: Because it is dangerous.
Child: Why?
Parent: You are too young to understand.[/b]
This statement is fallacious, despite the conclusion being accurate. It is merely a deflection from the question, and not an answer. A more accurate reasoning would be;
[b]Child: Why can’t I follow stranger at the park?
Parent: Because some people are not always nice, and may try to take advantage of you, or hurt you, and this is quite common.[/b]
The second, adjusted statement is a lot more informative to the child, and perhaps even more convincing to the child. It also advocates openness and trust in the relationship, as well as keeping an open discourse.
Another version of this fallacy could be an appeal to parenthood, and this is painstakingly common.
[b]Child: *Makes a valid observation which rejects the argument or rules of the parent. *
Parent: You will not understand until you are a parent.[/b]
The fact that the child is not a parent, is not relevant to the discussion, and the fact that this does not explain in the slightest the reasoning behind said decision, argument or rule, would foster a feeling of mistrust and cause a negative relationship between parents and their children.
Another example of Ad Aetatem moves away from a parent child relationship, and more to an adult-youth relationship. This is the well-known, ‘shush, the adults are talking.’
Two adults are discussing a topic, of which a nearby youth suggests an idea that either of the adults disagree with, instead of considering the argument rationally, the adult rejects the idea stating, ‘you’re too young to understand.’
Unlike most other forms of ad hominem, this fallacy is particularly aggressive. While most ad hominem questions the validity of a persons claim (due to their characteristics), the ad aetatem variant questions the right of the person to make a claim in the first place. Where general ad hominem creates a questionable claim, it still allows a claim to be possible (albeit questionable). Contrastingly, ad aetatem exists in state where the owner of the claim is inherently wrong, or that their argument is not worth hearing.
There is no such thing as an argument that is inherently wrong. All arguments must be proven, or disproven. For example, the Sun is green. The sun is not green because it can be seen to not be green. The statement was disproven by logic, likewise; writing is a form of communication. Writing is a form of communication because we use it to communicate on a day-to-day basis. This statement was proven.
If there is no such thing as inherent wrongness, then ad aetatem is a fallacy. Philosophy does not care who create the ideas, an idea is completely detached from its creator, and exists completely on its own, to be picked apart and criticized by others.
If the infinite monkey theorem led to an argument that was logically flawless, then I would not reject it simply because it was written by a monkey, who had no awareness of what it was creating. Ideas are ideas, and the person behind them does not matter. A philosophical view written by a 4-year-old deserves as much respect as a philosophical view written by an 80-year-old- the quality of the beliefs and the quality of the logic, is what we should leave our judgement to.
We are all equal when it comes to philosophy, because no logic can determine the characteristics of the writer behind a perfectly written thesis.
Because of this I believe we should take an active stand against the all too prevalent Ad Aetatem.
Question : Is Argumentum Ad Aetatem a concerning fallacy, and if so, how do we combat its widespread usage?
Argumentum Ad Aetatem
Fallacies are a form of reasoning that is not compatible with logic and can therefore cause an argument to become invalid. There are several well-known fallacies that are both commonplace and often picked up on. These irrational lines of reasoning can include, Ad Hominin, The Gambler’s Fallacy, Straw manning as well as many other invalid arguments. Perhaps the most dangerous type of fallacy is Ad Hominin, which can allow people to attack people instead of their arguments or attack the arguments due to the people that have held that belief.
An example of this would be stating that Person A is wrong because Person A is always wrong. This line of reason does not actually consider the evidence of the Person A’s argument, and instead claims that Person A’s argument is wrong because the person making the argument is Person A.
Therefore, the situation outlined in the above paragraph would be considered a fallacy. The opposite is also true, claiming that an argument is correct because of who made it is also a flaw and, by extension, a fallacy.
This leads me to make a troubling discovery, and that discovery is the overuse of ideals such as, ‘You’re too young to understand,’ or ‘You’re too young to hold an opinion on this matter’. This logic is fundamentally flawed, it is no worse than saying that someone is wrong because of their race, marital status, sex etc.
So, what is troubling about this?
How widespread it is. Even on philosophy sites I can link at least three occasions in the last 24 hours where I have seen that one is ‘young,’ and ‘lacking understanding,’ because of this. But the existence of this within a philosophy forum does not even worry as much as the potential this creates for a lack of critical thinking and reasoning, due to the prevalence this has in the real-world. Almost every child remembers a time in which a parent has said, ‘you’re too young to understand.’ A belief such as this is dangerous, it can create an atmosphere in which a child believes that critical reasoning and questioning existence is not important. This is dangerous because it can mean that in the future that person may be easily manipulated, or tricked, by governments, corporations, or individuals.
I could not find a current accepted term for this fallacy so I believe we should refer to it as Ad Aetatem which is short for Argumentum Ad Aetatem which in English is Argument from age. (After writing this post I found some evidence suggest the term 'wisdom of the ancients', but I believe argument from age is more common.
[b]Sometimes, parents may claim that this fallacious reason is justified, for example,
Child: Why can’t I follow strangers at the park?
Parent: Because it is dangerous.
Child: Why?
Parent: You are too young to understand.[/b]
This statement is fallacious, despite the conclusion being accurate. It is merely a deflection from the question, and not an answer. A more accurate reasoning would be;
[b]Child: Why can’t I follow stranger at the park?
Parent: Because some people are not always nice, and may try to take advantage of you, or hurt you, and this is quite common.[/b]
The second, adjusted statement is a lot more informative to the child, and perhaps even more convincing to the child. It also advocates openness and trust in the relationship, as well as keeping an open discourse.
Another version of this fallacy could be an appeal to parenthood, and this is painstakingly common.
[b]Child: *Makes a valid observation which rejects the argument or rules of the parent. *
Parent: You will not understand until you are a parent.[/b]
The fact that the child is not a parent, is not relevant to the discussion, and the fact that this does not explain in the slightest the reasoning behind said decision, argument or rule, would foster a feeling of mistrust and cause a negative relationship between parents and their children.
Another example of Ad Aetatem moves away from a parent child relationship, and more to an adult-youth relationship. This is the well-known, ‘shush, the adults are talking.’
Two adults are discussing a topic, of which a nearby youth suggests an idea that either of the adults disagree with, instead of considering the argument rationally, the adult rejects the idea stating, ‘you’re too young to understand.’
Unlike most other forms of ad hominem, this fallacy is particularly aggressive. While most ad hominem questions the validity of a persons claim (due to their characteristics), the ad aetatem variant questions the right of the person to make a claim in the first place. Where general ad hominem creates a questionable claim, it still allows a claim to be possible (albeit questionable). Contrastingly, ad aetatem exists in state where the owner of the claim is inherently wrong, or that their argument is not worth hearing.
There is no such thing as an argument that is inherently wrong. All arguments must be proven, or disproven. For example, the Sun is green. The sun is not green because it can be seen to not be green. The statement was disproven by logic, likewise; writing is a form of communication. Writing is a form of communication because we use it to communicate on a day-to-day basis. This statement was proven.
If there is no such thing as inherent wrongness, then ad aetatem is a fallacy. Philosophy does not care who create the ideas, an idea is completely detached from its creator, and exists completely on its own, to be picked apart and criticized by others.
If the infinite monkey theorem led to an argument that was logically flawless, then I would not reject it simply because it was written by a monkey, who had no awareness of what it was creating. Ideas are ideas, and the person behind them does not matter. A philosophical view written by a 4-year-old deserves as much respect as a philosophical view written by an 80-year-old- the quality of the beliefs and the quality of the logic, is what we should leave our judgement to.
We are all equal when it comes to philosophy, because no logic can determine the characteristics of the writer behind a perfectly written thesis.
Because of this I believe we should take an active stand against the all too prevalent Ad Aetatem.
Question : Is Argumentum Ad Aetatem a concerning fallacy, and if so, how do we combat its widespread usage?
Argumentum Ad Aetatem
Comments (32)
When you're older you'll realise that naming fallacies is just a lazy way of avoiding having to counter difficult arguments.
If "you're too young to understand" is a poor argument in the context then counter it by explaining why, don't reach for the list of accepted fallacies. That would be an argumentum ad verecundiam.
Yeah, it's a fallacy. Call it out when you see it. But be leery of going on a crusade. I get called out as a boomer, an old white man, blah blah blah. My skin is thick. I don't give a shit and I try not to let it distract me from the merits of an argument. I think it's a distraction for me to get down in the weeds with someone every time they judge me, right or wrong.
In conclusion, if a fallacy is distracting from the merits of an argument, then it should be called out. But if calling out a fallacy itself creates a distraction, then calling it out is no better than the fallacy.
I think your concerns are genuine, but oft times people like to impress us with their knowledge of Latin. I'm not even sure if there is a name for this fallacy, but I'd call it "argumentum-ad-you-should-be-intimidated-by-my-genius-and-if-you-aren't-other-readers-might-think-I'm-pretty-wise-and-I'll-play-to-them-and-win-that-way."
I do realise that naming fallacies can be lazy way of avoiding having to counter arguments, this is why I still suggest explaining why a particular argument is fallacious, because just because an argument contains a fallacy doesn't mean it's wrong, which I have outlined above.
Furthermore, 'naming' fallacies, can be done for many reasons, like to identify the process by which we reason, and to keep the rules of logic consistent. In this context I refer literally to the 'naming and titling' of fallacies, in case that's what you were referring to.
It would also be argumentum ad logicam (argument from fallacy), not argumentum ad verecundiam (argument from authority).
I mean I have no knowledge of Latin, I put it into google translate. It sounds and functions consistently to most other forms of fallacy when regarding to their titling. Furthermore, the actual name of the fallacy doesn't even matter, I just have a need to identify things when writing about them.
I couldn't agree more, and this is the doctrine I try to live by when debating.
As one of the people who made this kind of statement to you, I'll respond. To be clear, I gave specific reasons for my disagreements with you about gender orientation which did not include any reference to anything personal about you. It's true, I did make this statement:
You're really young. Perhaps if you had a better understanding of what gay people have had to go through to get where they are today, it would give you a better perspective.
I'll stand behind this statement. The things you wrote in that discussion showed a lack of perspective. A lack of understanding of the history of the civil rights movement and a lack of understanding of the incredible changes that have taken place in the last 10 years. I'm certainly not an expert, but I did live through it. You seem to take all that for granted, which shows a lack of perspective, which I think is a result of your age.
It retrospect at the intended meaning of your statement perhaps I misinterpreted what you had written, as I had interpreted the 'you're really young' as an added phrase and not as a premise, and I am going to go back and re-discover my new position on your comment.
I initially interpreted your position as
- You are really young.
- Therefore you do not understand.
For example 'you are young, therefore you are not old,' is clearly not a fallacy, according to ad aetatem because that makes sense.
Of course, I still believe there are circumstances in which argument to age is still a fallacy, and still a large problem.
I understand this, but what about circumstances when the reasoning is denied simply because the creator is a child, regardless of how logical said reasoning is?
To be fair, I should have said it differently.
It does have one supporting feature the other's lack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Age isn't a literal position, but rather a statement regarding the amount of information one has available. But, in agreement; I've never had a reason to claim it. I'll just tell you, you don't know what you are talking about in a hypothetical scenario.
But I would disagree with the sentiment that age = amount of information. A person that died in 1856 have no knowledge of how WWII ended, yet a 10 year old that has watched or been taught anything about WWII would. Thus in this case the child has a larger amount of information then someone that is several centuries older.
Developing this point further:
If an omniscience child were to suddenly appear in the world, would that child's view be rejected simply because they are a child.
If the question is information instead of age, then the statement should be, 'you lack the information to understand,' instead of 'you're too young to understand.' Unless of course the actual premise of an argument requires an assumption of youth, for example, 'they are young, therefore they are old.' In all cases other, it promotes an idea that the older one is, the more information they hold, and this is false.
It's funny, but I almost said the same thing in that thread to another poster. Someone said that pronoun misuse denied someone their identity, making it just like genocide. Others called out the post, so I didn't want to pile on (until now I suppose). I thought to myself that there was a naive pureness in the comment, like the person never really knew what a truly bad day was. How lovely it would be if a rude uncaring comment would even register as a bottom 1000 day in my life.
And of course the comment included the innocent but critical oversight that there are actually those with entire branches of their family tree lost to genocide that were just told their experience is just like when a she is called a he. And I do believe the comment was innocent in intent, trying to protect the oppressed, but it missed the mark.
It does rest upon the aged to correct such youth. I'll admit though that some age very young and some never grow up.
Actually, this is non sequitur. I think you can find it. Technically 2 of them.Quoting Bradaction Yes.
Quoting Bradaction
I agree.
I disagree, reasoning is the very basis of human function, reasoning does matter. Obviously, there are reasons why particular arguments may be declined.
In the case of the beer, instead of simply declining, the parents could explain why they are declining the request.
Simply saying 'because i said so' does not foster good relationships between people, and is fallacious.
It's an appeal to authority, the conclusion may be correct, being '15 years old shouldn't have beer', but 'because i said so,' is no better then 15 shouldn't have beer because an authority figure said so, rather then it being 'dangerous'.
It's much simpler and would help foster better relationships in family and greater critical thinking skills.
It was a poor worded analogy aha, I think I should've worded it better as 'about world war 2, instead of just knowledge in general.
Quoting Cheshire
Do you believe they should? If so, why? Also, why do you believe they would be by society? Wouldn't such a child have the experiences of every age group though? And every age, and generational group that could ever exist?
Edit: For clarification I mean this metaphorically.
Sometimes we are too young to understand. I had this argument used on me by my parents a few times when young. It did not bother me. I understood that I lacked capacity to understand at the time, which was completely true.
Example: I asked why I couldn't accept a lift from a stranger. I didn't understand what my parents meant by potential danger or comprehend why someone might present risks to my safety. What did cut through was when my mum said as an adult she understood some risks I didn't understand and that she wanted me to follow direction until I was older enough to understand the issues. Made sense to me. Experience is a significant factor in understanding and even in having capacity to understand and reasoned argument sometimes falls flat or introduces other problems.
Occasionally, this is a matter of psychology and not parental avoidance. Years ago I read that generally it is inappropriate to expect a child under fifteen to understand a subject like calculus. Of course, there are exceptions for precocious children, but if a child twelve years old says, "I want to learn calculus" (probability of this happening=.0001), and then fails to understand it, the parent should not be surprised. :smile:
And age is also a statement regarding one's legal status, and everything that comes with that.
For some things, some peple truly are too young, such as drinking alcohol or driving a car.
And, of course, this whole conversation with your parents took place in an atmosphere of mutual trust, which made the conversation a very specific one, quite different from a plain syllogism written on a page somewhere.
That depends on whether the relationship is already bad or not. In an already bad relationship, adding more authoritarianism will not improve the situation.
But in a good, functional relationship where there is trust, the occasional "because I said so" will not cause any harm and will serve a good purpose, because both parties already assume that the person has a good reason for whatever they want, even if they don't say so at the time.
Criticial thinking skills and their implementation cannot make up for a lack of trust and they cannot make up for a fundamental lack of goodwill and affection.
Of course not. You really love your assumptions, Baker.
Yes, but, to be fair, you dropped responding to the points raised in your misgendering thread and opened a new one instead trying to name the fallacy you perceived as being in use there. It's not exactly leading by example is it?
This part:
Quoting Tom Storm
suggests that that particular conversation took place in an atmosphere of trust, even if it was just temporary.
Even a generally bad relationship with one's parents can have some bright moments, or at least such that aren't all bad.
I disagree, I think I responded to a huge amount of comments in my other thread, and tried to ensure that I hadn't missed any. But I also have school and chess study to do. I didn't make this post to focus simply on the use of this fallacy with the specific context of a specific thread.
If one sees an issue in society they should raise it, and particularly in the field of philosophy, we should raise any logical contradictions in the reasoning of society. I'm not sure on how my other thread is relevant to this discussion, other then perhaps providing examples of the fallacy on this context.
As to your point on leading by example, you assume my intentions incorrectly. At this point in time, I'm not here to be a leader. I'm here to be a thinker, and a questioner. Should we not be constantly aiming to advance the field of philosophy? To deepen our understanding?
I'm here to ask questions, to create discussions, discourse, to question the things that others don't question, and to answer the things that others can't answer. Isn't this why we are all here? If not, then why are we here discussing these things?
We achieve our best when we are challenged, and I want others to bring out the best in me, and me them. If I see an issue, I am not going to merely be silence about it, I'm going to ask, and question that issue. I'm going to ask why and seek to understand, this is in my nature, it's how I am. I'm going to challenge, after all there is no progression without challenge, for without challenge there is no reason for change.
I believe everything should be questioned, so I questioned it. It is leading by the example I want to set. That all issues should be questioned, and that all flaws in logical and society that should cause society to become illogical should be challenged.
Since the timeliness of my replies is in question. I shall be replying to any new comments on my thread at approx 5:00 am AEST tomorrow, during the day I will not be replying as it is the athletics carnival at school. I will attempt to reply to all comments I believe require a response from me, and it is to my apologies if I cannot reply within a certain timeframe.
Not sure about 'bright' but I hear you. :smile:
If I've been reading authentic translations of the Mahabharata, there's this cute sub-plot in it where Draupadi, the queen, is with child. The father, Arjuna, a great warrior, perhaps impatiently, begins teaching his son, just a fetus then, battle field strategy. Just as he's about to impart a crucial piece of information on battle formations (Chakravyu or something like that), Draupadi falls asleep, so does the as yet unborn son. The son, Abhimanyu's his name if memory serves, is born but he has no knowledge of the Chakravyu formation.
Later, Abhimanyu becomes a great warrior. He takes part in a war but is slain in the battle field. How? Chakravyu!!!
Argumentum Ad Aetatem!