Fortune 500 companies do [something], so proof!
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
I work in IT. I am constantly provided with "Fortune 500 companies do it..." as proof positive that I'm wrong for questioning something. I've personally deemed this the "Those Less Fortunate" fallacy. Just today I was challenged that "O365 is used by Fortune 500 companies, and I find it very difficult to believe that the same individual has administrative access to CEO email and administrative access to Sharepoint/OneDrive." Frankly, I personally know that there are such people, and one of them works for a local Fortune 500 company.
Beyond that, I think can think of plenty of examples of Fortune 500 companies doing all manner of terrible things. I don't feel that "Because Fortune 500 companies..." is viable logic for anything.
Is this type of logic already some official fallacy? Is this simply Appeal to Authority?
Beyond that, I think can think of plenty of examples of Fortune 500 companies doing all manner of terrible things. I don't feel that "Because Fortune 500 companies..." is viable logic for anything.
Is this type of logic already some official fallacy? Is this simply Appeal to Authority?
Answers
1This is the appeal to authority fallacy :
p. Fortune 500 companies are doing it.
p. You are not doing it.
c. Therefore, you are wrong.
It is not unreasonable, for those wanting to emulate best-practices (as assumed by the size/success of the company), to put more stock in the practices of fortune 500 companies. This is why vendors of the fortune 500 companies often brag about their clients. The idea is "if we are good enough for them, we are good enough for you." A reasonable heuristic at best, but never an absolute rule (like the instance that you are wrong in the fallacy above).
So it comes down to the claim being made. It may be debatable that the average Fortune 500 company is more likely to know what they are doing then the average non- F500 company, but again, not an unreasonable heuristic. I see this similar to stereotyping... it's not unreasonable to assume that people in prison are more dangerous than people not in prison, but to state:
p. You're in prison.
p. I am not.
c. You are more dangerous than I am.
Is fallacious, because we have not established with logical certainty that people in prison are more dangerous. Likewise, we have not established with logical certainty that F500 companies know better than non F500 companies.
p. Fortune 500 companies are doing it.
p. You are not doing it.
c. Therefore, you are wrong.
It is not unreasonable, for those wanting to emulate best-practices (as assumed by the size/success of the company), to put more stock in the practices of fortune 500 companies. This is why vendors of the fortune 500 companies often brag about their clients. The idea is "if we are good enough for them, we are good enough for you." A reasonable heuristic at best, but never an absolute rule (like the instance that you are wrong in the fallacy above).
So it comes down to the claim being made. It may be debatable that the average Fortune 500 company is more likely to know what they are doing then the average non- F500 company, but again, not an unreasonable heuristic. I see this similar to stereotyping... it's not unreasonable to assume that people in prison are more dangerous than people not in prison, but to state:
p. You're in prison.
p. I am not.
c. You are more dangerous than I am.
Is fallacious, because we have not established with logical certainty that people in prison are more dangerous. Likewise, we have not established with logical certainty that F500 companies know better than non F500 companies.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course