So, are you denying that you said, "I also think you forgot that even though we have all those thousands of astronomers," in an attempt to make what you said sound credible through the use of an authority?
Also, numerum means numbers, or slinging numbers around in order to make your point sound more popular, which you presented in an attempt to make yourself sound credible. Populum means the population, loosely translated, and means that you are arguing about what the population thinks. I already told you I meant verecundiam instead of populum, which means that you are arguing that authorities say it is so, so it must be so. Have you never taken a speech or debate class in your life?
No, the thousands of amateur astronomers are not an authority, read my comment again. I explained it all, but you ignored it.
"Also, numerum means numbers, or slinging numbers around in order to make your point sound more popular,"
Oh yeah? Where did you find that definition?
Dude, are you seriously pulling the fallacy card on me? You yourself are one massive fallacy, and you're actually pretending that you've been in proper debates!
California State University Northridge seems to disagree with you. Perhaps you are simply smarter than all of those professors?
Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. ...ad numerum is used to designate appeals based purely on the number of people who hold a particular belief.
Perhaps you should do a little research in the future before making yourself seem ignorant?
Even your source says that they're nearly identical, and the definitions mean pretty much the same thing. No matter where else I looked, they were synonymous, and they're written by similar professors as well. Were you just trying to make it seem like I made more mistakes than I did?
"California State University Northridge seems to disagree with you. Perhaps you are simply smarter than all of those professors?"
What does it disagree with, that you're full of fallacies? By the way, isn't what you're doing ad verecundiam going by your definition?
Maybe you should look up in your source ad hominem, ad logicam, complex question, dicto simpliciter, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, red herring, straw man and tu quoque, because you use them all the time.
Oh, I almost forgot, here's what your source has to say about argumentum ad verecundiam: "This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees,
even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist.
Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes.At least in some forms of debate, quoting various sources to support one's position is not just acceptable but mandatory. In general,
there is nothing wrong with doing so. Even if the person quoted has no particular expertise in the area, he may have had a particularly eloquent way of saying something that makes for a more persuasive speech. In general, debaters should be called down for committing argumentum ad verecundiam
only when (a) they rely on an unqualified source for information about facts without other (qualified) sources of verification, or (b) they imply that some policy must be right simply because so-and-so thought so."