Talk:Ad nauseam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Philosophy / Logic (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Additional information:
 
Taskforce icon
Logic

October 2006[edit]

Is argumentum ad nauseam necessarialy the FALSE proof? If I argue something "ad nauseam" and it's true, is it no longer AAN?

If you're making an argumentum ad nauseam you are not proving your point, even if you happen to be right. "The sun rises every day, because the Pope says so" is a logical fallacy known as proof by authority. That the conclusion is true doesn't mean the argument is valid.
I've made a few changes to the article, and moved a lot of text to Proof by assertion where it was more appropriate. Argumentum ad nauseam is just a very specific form of proof by assertion. Furthermore I've tried to clear up that the phrase 'ad nauseam' has meaning aside from the discussion technique. 130.89.167.52 12:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[]

The example provided is extremely unnecessary, and really unbalanced, IMO...

---

The example given seems to be a gratuitous attempt to mention Rush Limbaugh on the same page as Joseph Goebbels.

In any case, Limbaugh commits many varied fallacies, and without a more specific example of "ad nauseum", this example does nothing to illuminate the topic.

Limbaugh is rather well-known for his use of persuasion techniques. I'd rather see Limbaugh mentioned than Goebbels to get across the idea that this fallacy is commonly used to persuade.

I think Goebbels provides a more striking example. Lots of people, especially younger ones, don't follow politics and are unaware of Rush Limbaugh's techniques, but everybody is aware of Nazi propaganda and its effectiveness. The horrible result of it also demonstrates how dangerous an argument ad nauseam can be, something that an example with Rush Limbaugh doesn't illustrate nearly as well. - furrykef (Talk at me) 23:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[]
I'm for more contemporary examples, like:

I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. - GW Bush

(Ronz 01:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC))[]
I am sure that most people will agree that the comments from many contemporary political figures have the ability to cause nausea. The problem is that there is no universal agreement on which comments or political figures possess this ability. As a result, we are better off sticking to historical examples where a greater level of agreement may be obtained. --Allen3 talk 10:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[]

---

The 'Quotation needed' tag on the first line seems unnecessary and drive-by-ish. To verify what? 'Ad' -> to, 'nausea' -> nausea. Removing unless anyone can clarify. Shamalamadingdomg (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[]

It's "ad nauseatum"![edit]

Sorry to break it to you, but there's no such thing in Latin as "ad nauseam", it's "ad nauseatum". I have a Bachelor's in Latin. Please, would someone correct or delete this erroneous entry? Or redirect it to a proper "ad nauseatum" page? The internet is filled with this wrong entry, probably an American fallacy, but why at Wikipedia? Come on, fix this once and for all, won't you?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.79.219.250 (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[]

Goebbels[edit]

Goebbels (repeating Hitler) said that a lie would be believed if it was big enough; Lenin said "a lie told often enough becomes the truth". It seems to me that the correct authority here is Lenin, not Goebbels, and I have amended accordingly. Interesting aside: the attribution of the repeated lie to Goebbels is itself a form of argumentum ad nauseam, in that it has by now been repeated sufficiently often as to be firmly fixed in the public mind :-) -- Just zis Guy, you know? 10:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[]

As it got removed I added it back as I think its a good popular example of the same (or at least similar) concept, but pre-empted the people removing it thinking it was definitely Goebbels that said it. Would like to find a primary source that confirms things one way or the other to refer to, but there are so many hits in google finding a good one would be a chore (particularly as the original quote might well have been slightly different, and contains lots of common words that are hard to find unique matches on). -- Sfnhltb 01:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[]

Minor Adjustment[edit]

I made an addition to this article as it seemed (to me anyways) that it may lead some people to conclude that the user of this fallacy intentionally promotes a lie, this is not always true. Let me give an example: Logically a religious person may continually state that Lazzarus rose from the dead after 6 days because the Bible states it even though a logical argument could be constructed against the plausibility of this from a medical standpoint. This does not mean the user does not believe his/her statement to be true. Quadzilla99 04:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[]

What about the other way around?[edit]

What if someone makes a valid point, but it is ignored because that point is made over and over again. Would that still count? Asmeurer (talkcontribs) 22:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[]

Difference from Proof by assertion?[edit]

As nauseam (fallacy section) seems to be the same as proof by assertion (repeat argument until success). Opinions whether the section should merge with the other article and other organizational arrangements? K61824 (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[]

The book[edit]

http://idiolect.org.uk/notes/?p=935 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.21.66 (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[]

Specifically about a discussion/argument?[edit]

Can ad nauseam only apply to arguments, or could a joke be repeated ad nauseam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.131.65 (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Pop culture references: A plug???[edit]

I see in the popular culture references the following:

"Ad Nauseam is the title of the second full-length album by UK Death Metal band The Rotted, released 31st October 2010 on Candlelight Records."

This reads to me like a plug for some unknown band. My understanding of Wikipedia's "popular culture" references is that they should be relevant and culturally significant. A relatively recent release by an unknown death metal band on a label nobody's heard of does not sound culturally significant: it sounds like an attempt to sell more records.

Granted that I'm not hip with the death metal scene, but seriously... this does not pass the smell test, IMHO. I recommend deletion of the passage in question... but we could always discuss the issue ad nauseam, if you prefer. 71.197.152.48 (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[]

Italics?[edit]

Is the phrase always set in italics? Why or why not? If it is supposed to be in italics, why isn't that done consistently through the article? --Lbeaumont (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[]

Dictionary[edit]

This article seems like a dictionary page. Jwood (leave me a message) See what I'm up to 22:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[]