It's a fallacy to believe in something based on the number of people who hold that belief. A classic example would be flat-earthers. Most people in the past believed that the Earth was flat. Believing this solely on numbers is a fallacy.

On the opposite end of the spectrum we have scientific experiments. As the number of observations confirm a hypothesis it gains more credibility. In short, the more the merrier. I guess this strategy is grounded on the idea that errors cancel out and the assumption that instruments are objective in nature.

The two paragraphs above stand in contradiction to each other. Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy while science uses it all the time.

Also, when arguing from authority, it's necessary to check for expert consensus. Without consensus of the experts, an argument from authority becomes uncogent.

So, we have here two opposing views. One says believing on numbers alone is bad and the other forms its very foundation on numbers.

I ask because I feel that it's very difficult, nigh impossible, for everybody to be wrong. In a sense, I think there's objectivity in numbers. Take the example of flat-earthers. They were simply reporting what was seen - the Earth flat from a human perspective.

What do you think?

I ask because everybody I meet is telling me something which I hope is wrong. But, my gut feeling is they're right in telling me.