Modernity plagued with ad novitatem thinking

[cryosteel]

The following reply from the replacing idiocracy thread serves us with an example:

So you havent gone to an art show lately? Or havent listened to any recently made music? Nor the next harry potter book? Or that funny as fuck movie hot fuzz? Art has gone away? Gimmy a break fool.

False.

Argumentum ad novitatem (appeal to modernity)

it's the fallacy of asserting that something is better or more correct simply because it is new, or newer than something else

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#novitatem

Ad novitatem thinking among the general public is an effect of mass marketing. Mass marketing is an effect of capitalism, which enlists "useful tools" to sustain itself; willing consumers and unwitting transmitters of viral memes (mass marketing without compensation is slavery) as shown in the example at the top.

The general public are willing slaves in behaviour and unwitting slaves in mind.

 

[derbeder]

if you think the claims implied by the rhetorical questions in the original quote are false, it is a good idea to say what reasons there are for thinking they are false. one way of doing so is (1) to argue that the most plausible justifications of what that quote says rest on certain assumptions (or a rule of inferences) and then (2) to argue that some of these assumption are themselves not warranted. here you have identified an assumption in the original quote that you have called 'appeal to modernity'. and it is patently false. but the bulk of the criticism of the original quote should be focused on explaining why you think it actually makes this unacceptable assumption. as far as i'm concerned, it is unclear that the original post relied on it (or any similar assumption of that generality).

 

[JColtrane]

In my opinion modern society is just as apt to make an appeal to how old something is to claim that it has worth. You see this all over the place; i.e., established in 1856 or things of the like.

One of the purposes of advertising is to fill something with worth that has little or none. Essentially it's a sleight of hand, a tricking people into thinking something has inherent worth, when really the "worth" comes from associating the product with something else, which may be completely unrelated to the product

 

[cryosteel]

In my opinion modern society is just as apt to make an appeal to how old something is to claim that it has worth. You see this all over the place; i.e., established in 1856 or things of the like.

In your specific example of companies laying claim to when they were established, this is not an appeal to tradition fallacy. Experience over time can be meritous for creating customer trust.

Derbeder would very much like us to believe that the ad novitatem fallacy is not a substantial underpinning of modern society.

 

[derbeder]

here is an important distinction in propositional attitudes such as belief. not believing that something is the case is different from believing that something is not the case. i don't believe that george bush likes pancakes, because the thought never really occurred to me and i have no evidence either way. because i have no evidence, in my situation i surely don't believe that george bush does not like pancakes. so the following is possible and actually very common: one does not believe that p but one also does not believe that not-p. this is what happens when one has one opinion whether or not p.

in this case, i simply have no opinion on the matter, so i don't believe your claim that the ad novitatem fallacy is not a substantial underpinning of modern society. i am not even sure what it means for something to be a substantial underpinning of modern society. hence, i am also definitely not telling anyone to reject your claim.
it is difficult to say something substantive and true about something as grand as modern society. it takes a little more than the remarks above.

 

[Blowtus]

Changes to an 'old thing' (thus creating a 'new thing') are usually made for the purpose of improving one or many aspects of it. So it seems a reasonable assumption that new = better than old. Of course, like all useful assumptions it is no doubt made to look bad by those who rely only on the assumption, and do not (whether through lack of means or motive) assess the situation more accurately once the opportunity arises.

Like Derbeder I do not see the broad scale implications of what you say though - what do you propose occurs because of that you propose?

 

[JColtrane]

The greater problem underlying what we are discussing is the association of something with a product to create value, rather than the product's attributes themselves creating value.

As derbeder said, it is difficult to assess a general problem with something so large and various as modern society, but I think it is fair to say that the above problem is rather wide spread.

 

[speed]

The greater problem underlying what we are discussing is the association of something with a product to create value, rather than the product's attributes themselves creating value.

As derbeder said, it is difficult to assess a general problem with something so large and various as modern society, but I think it is fair to say that the above problem is rather wide spread.

I would agree with Coltrane and Cyrosteel, it is very widespread. And even more troubling is how technology and marketing has seized upon this form of thinking to sell so many products and make so many fallacious claims.

 

[infoterror]

if you think the claims implied by the rhetorical questions in the original quote are false, it is a good idea to say what reasons there are for thinking they are false. one way of doing so is (1) to argue that the most plausible justifications of what that quote says rest on certain assumptions (or a rule of inferences) and then (2) to argue that some of these assumption are themselves not warranted.

That's what he did:

(1) Society believes in progress, or what is newer is better.
(2) There is no qualitative assessment in that, only a temporal one.

"Progress" is a sick, self-congratulatory myth.

 

[derbeder]

I don't think people in general believe what is newer is better. It takes a lot to warrant an ascription of a certain belief to a whole lot of people. You guys think many people in modern society believe that what is newer is better. I want to know why you think that. That will allow me to better evaluate the claim.

 

[infoterror]

You guys think many people in modern society believe that what is newer is better.

Look at how people treat ideas like technology. "Oh well science now says X, Y, or Z... this equipment is newer than that antiquated shit (although the software on that hardware was better...hmm) ...now we know so much better than in the middle ages." You hear it all the time.

 

[derbeder]

With respect to technology people do tend to think that newer products are more advanced than antiquated products. If you wish to buy a computer for your use, you would choose one that has been built recently over one that was made 10 years ago. The new computer can do more things that you want done in a shorter amount of time. You may want the old computer for other reasons, if you are a collector, but for the primary use that computers are put, usually the newer stuff tends to be more suitable than the old. Still, even when we look at people's dispositions to choose between computers, I doubt we would see an exceptionless choice for the newer over the older, especially if they have not been built too far apart in time. In my experience computer buyers do consider the qualities of the computers they need to choose from, instead of jumping on the chance to get the newest one. People are not as gullible as you seem to think they are.

I went with this computer example, since you mentioned it. But it does not serve as a very good justification for the point you're trying to make, since in the case of computers the new does tend to be better than the old. With respect to other products, there are even more exceptions to the rule that new is better than the old. And these would serve your purpose better. Are today's shampoos better than ones that were around 10 years ago? Probably not. But advertisements will make you buy the newer ones over the old ones (if the old ones were still to be found in the market). There are many more examples along these lines. It would be better to use these instead of the computer example.

Technology is but one of the things that people may think there has been advance in. Other areas are science, religion, systems of government and so on. In religion, for instance, one may not find as many people who prefer the new to the old (say scientology over christianity) simply because it is new. Indeed, they will simply stick with the old no matter what comes on the market for spiritual beliefs. With respect to systems of government, people may actually think through what was not so great for them under a monarchic rule or a theocratic rule and believe that a secular, democratic rule is better for them. People may not think as much about these things in the US perhaps, but in places where people believe there is a danger to a secular, democratic government (as in Turkey at this moment), people may actually choose the new over the old based on good reasons and not by a fallacious inference that the new is always (or usually) better than the old.

I just want to say that making a claim about what a whole lot of people presuppose is rather difficult. There are lots of differences between people and there are lots of different things that each one of them thinks about. This makes it quite difficult to make good generalizations at this level. There are indeed good generalizations, but it takes a lot justify them.

 

[infoterror]

If you wish to buy a computer for your use, you would choose one that has been built recently over one that was made 10 years ago.

Not necessarily -- I'd still prefer a MegaST over a PC/Mac for MIDI sequencing.

Design is not a linear process.