"We've Always Done It This Way"

Yes. And we used to think the Earth was flat.

🔥 Hook

Your school has a rule: no phones in class. Someone asks why.

"Because that's how it's always been."

Okay but... that rule was made before smartphones existed. Before Wikipedia. Before you could literally pull up a primary source in 10 seconds. The world changed. The rule didn't.

Now flip it. Someone's fighting to keep a tradition they love:

"We've done this for 50 years! It's part of who we are!"

And maybe they're right. Maybe it's a good tradition. But "we've done it for 50 years" isn't the reason it's good. It's just the reason it's old.

That's Appeal to Tradition — using age as a substitute for arguments.

🧠 What's Actually Happening?

Appeal to Tradition (also called argumentum ad antiquitatem) is the logical fallacy of arguing that something is good, correct, or should continue simply because it's old or long-standing.

The structure:

"We've always done X → therefore X is correct/good/should continue."

The problem: time doesn't validate things. Something being old just means it survived — not that it was right.

History is full of old ideas that were eventually proven wrong or just outdated:

• Bloodletting as medicine (practiced for 2,000 years)
• Women not being allowed to vote
• The Sun orbiting the Earth
• Sending kids to work in mines
• Lobotomies as psychiatric treatment

All of these had strong tradition behind them. All of them were eventually abandoned for good reason.

Tradition can be meaningful and worth preserving. But the argument for keeping something needs to be about the thing — not about how long it's been around.

📱 Real-Life Scroll

Political arguments:

"Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. That's how it's been for thousands of years."

School/workplace rules:

"We've always had this dress code. It's part of our culture."

Family pressure:

"In our family, we [do this tradition]. That's not going to change."

Tech resistance:

"Why switch systems? We've used this software for 20 years. It works."

Sports/competition:

"We've always judged it this way. Why change it now?"

The sneakiest version is when "tradition" gets wrapped in emotion: culture, identity, heritage, respect for ancestors. These feelings are real and valid — but they're not arguments for whether a practice is actually good or just.

You can love and honor where you came from while still asking: "Is this tradition serving us well today?"

🔍 How to Spot It

The tell: an argument whose entire reasoning is the passage of time.

"It's been this way for [long time] → so it should stay this way."

Or the mirror version:

"This is too new/modern → so it can't be trusted."

Ask yourself:

• What is the actual reason this tradition exists?
• Does that reason still apply today?
• If this were proposed as a new idea tomorrow, would it be accepted on its merits?

⚠️ Fair point: Tradition isn't always wrong! Many traditional practices contain accumulated wisdom that's worth preserving. The problem isn't tradition — it's using age alone as your justification, without any further reasoning.

💬 What You Can Do

When someone uses tradition as the only argument:

Ask for the actual reason:

"Okay, but why is this a good practice? What purpose does it serve?"

Separate longevity from correctness:

"Something can be old and wrong. Something can be new and right. Age alone doesn't decide."

Acknowledge the value while pushing further:

"I get that it's part of our history. But should we keep doing it? What's the case for that?"

You don't have to disrespect the past to think critically about it.

🎯 Your Challenge

Pick one tradition you've never questioned — at home, school, or in your culture.

Doesn't have to be anything controversial. Just something you've always done without really asking why.

Now ask:

• What's the origin of this tradition? Why did it start?
• Does that original reason still apply?
• Is there a better argument for keeping it — or is "we've always done it" doing all the work?

Bonus challenge: Find a tradition that was changed (not abolished — just updated or adjusted) and read about the resistance it faced. What arguments were used against changing it? Were those arguments good? Looking back, was the change a good idea?

The past is worth learning from. It's just not worth being trapped in. 📜