In the previous essay we looked at the family of fallacies in which the appeal to tradition resides. In this essay we will take a look at the test of time and the origin problem. As noted in that essay, the gist of the appeal to tradition is that it involves fallaciously inferring that something is correct or true simply because it is a tradition. While concluding that something is correct or true merely because it has been done or believed a long time is an obvious error, those making an appeal to tradition often try to invoke the notion of the test of time. In some cases, the appeal to the test of time is implied while in others it is explicitly made. The appeal to the test of time can be presented as the following argument:
Premise 1: X has withstood the test of time.
Conclusion: X is true, right, or correct, etc.
While this could be a possible fallacy, the main concern is working out what constitutes the test of time. If this simply means that X has been believed or practiced a long time, then this is just the appeal to tradition fallacy all over again. False beliefs can persist for centuries as can awful practices, so mere historical longevity does not suffice as evidence of truth or goodness.
The test of time can, of course, be defined in terms of actual testing. In the case of a belief it could be argued that the belief has been subject to repeated assessment for a long time using rigorous methods and thus has passed the test of time. While such testing over time would be good evidence for a belief, it still does not mean that the belief should be accepted as true because it is a tradition. Rather, it should be accepted as true because of the evidence found during the repeated testing. As such, if a belief has passed this sort of test of time, then there should be a significant body of evidence to back up the belief and hence there would be no reason to make a mere appeal to tradition. There are numerous examples of such beliefs—such as the belief that the earth orbits the sun, that fire burns, that the appeal to tradition is a fallacy, and smoking damages your health. There can, of course, be meaningful debate over even well-supported beliefs.
The same approach can be taken for practices—if a practice has been rigorously assessed over time, then there should be a significant body of evidence supporting the correctness or goodness of the practice and thus no reason to try to rely on a mere appeal to tradition. For example, the practice of good hygiene has been assessed over time and has been found to be a good health practice. Well-supported practices are also obviously still subject to debate and practices that involve value judgments (such as in law, ethics and religion) are matters of considerable dispute.
Using the test of time approach creates a dilemma: if the test of time is just another expression for tradition, then it is just an appeal to tradition. If the test of time involves rigorous testing, then there is no need to appeal to tradition—there would be good evidence and arguments to use instead. One thing that those who use the test of time approach must admit is that this test must have had a starting point. That is, every belief or practice that is defended as traditional must have an origin—this leads to the origin problem.
The origin problem for tradition is that when the tradition was new it could obviously not be defended by appealing to tradition (or the test of time). The obvious question to ask at the origin of a now traditional belief or practice is “what made it better than the alternatives then?”
The answer to this question should still be applicable today, though it might need to be modified to account for changes over time. As such, a fair response to an appeal to tradition is to engage in some thought time travel and ask the appealer why you should accept the belief or practice at the time before it became a tradition. For example, if someone is appealing to tradition to defend what they see as traditional roles, it is quite reasonable to trace the lineage of the tradition back to its origin and inquire about what made these roles better at that time—and why they are the best today. Obviously on day zero of a tradition there can be no appeal to tradition. If no reasons can be advanced as to why it was better then, merely saying it is a tradition now obviously provides no reasons to support its alleged truth or correctness.