What is the primary flaw in using tradition as evidence for an argument, as seen in argumentum ad antiquitatem?

Using tradition as evidence for an argument presents a primary flaw in that traditions often lack a valid rationale. This means that just because something has been done a certain way for a long time does not inherently make it right or justifiable. The reasoning supporting traditional practices may be outdated or based on arbitrary decisions rather than sound logic or empirical evidence. This reliance on tradition can also ignore evolving knowledge and societal changes that may render previous practices inappropriate or ineffective. By accepting tradition uncritically as a basis for argument, one risks promoting beliefs that do not hold up under scrutiny or align with current understandings and advancements. Therefore, assessing the validity of an argument based solely on its traditional roots is fundamentally flawed, as it does not engage with the merits of the argument in the present context.