Talk:Appeal to novelty/Archives/2012

As applied to art?

Would it make sense to add something to the article about people giving more value to more recent art? Music is the most prominent example, I guess; lots of people (especially, but not exclusively, youth) tend to dismiss older music as inherently inferior to newer music, and often their rationale involves the argument that "newer is better". I'm not sure this actually belongs in the article, but if it does I'd like to see some mention of it. I won't dare writing it, at least not right now, as I don't know how to put it in words without seeming amateurish. --Cotoco 05:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Fallacy?

I've rewritten the whole thing (sorry if I got a little carried away). Now, thinking about this: Is it a fallacy to call Appeal to novelty a fallacy? I mean, it is absurd in principle, but at once it's applied on a real-world problem, it may very well used with some success. Such as, "The state of the nation is bad under party A's rule, so we should support party B". Does the information that the state of the nation is "bad" signify that a change is *more likely* to have a positive outcome than a negative? Perhaps people have a - correct - hunch that the answer is yes, and in that case, they're not really committing a fallacy. And this seems to be the case for any applied case. Narssarssuaq 13:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Citations, please!

I need to cite the sources for the article. I'm a student of logic, and I can tell you that the info in the article are probably not the original insights of the author. I specifically need to cite the sources for what this type of fallacious argument ignores (the three things) and the part about the aesthetics' argument sometimes not being a fallacy. Let me further add that the author did NOT say that newer music is ALWAYS better. I guess Cotoco's insight is original [and important for reasons of emphasis]. Can someone help me out?

Actually, I'd say it's a fallacy not when they say something new is more likely to improve, but when they state it as an absolute fact and use the fact that it's new as evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.76.162 (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)