@ Bryan - If you tried to improve clarity, you failed. I've read it at least 5 times and I'm still trying to wrap my head around some of your sentence construction…--Kyle Sparks, Facebook Comment, December 23, 2010, 3:22 p.m.
Keeping the above Facebook comment in mind, recently in my research I came upon a “fallacy” not encountered before, called proof by verbosity or intimidation.
Argumentum verbosium is also known as Proof by Intimidation, or Proof by Verbosity. It refers to an argument that is so complex, so long-winded and so poorly presented by the arguer that you are obliged to accept it, simply to avoid being forced to sift through its minute details.
This fallacy is epitomized by this lovely statement, “If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bullshit.”
And then there’s this, by none other than Ayn Rand, written in her 1964 essay "The Virtue of Selfishness:" Emphasis is added to the sentence that's "the whole show":
There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent's agreement with one's undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure. Since it is particularly prevalent in today's culture and is going to grow more so in the next few months, one would do well to learn to identify it and be on guard against it.
This method bears a certain resemblance to the fallacy ad hominem, and comes from the same psychological root, but is different in essential meaning. The ad hominem fallacy consists of attempting to refute an argument by impeaching the character of its proponent. Example: "Candidate X is immoral, therefore his argument is false."
But the psychological pressure method consists of threatening to impeach an opponent's character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: "Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X's argument is false."
Rand tells us that this type of argument is “going to grow more so in the next few months”—she may as well have said “decades” or “centuries.” These days, however, there are those who use it much better than others, among those who are familiar with it. I only came across this by accident, because I do not see it at the most commonly used websites describing logic fallacies. But it came as no surprise to me that this was written about by none other than Libertarian Ayn Rand. There are some Ayn-Randian types as well who use it not only a regular basis, but have mastered it almost subliminally (hmmmmm?). Some recent examples (emphasis added):
You're trying to defend Carina by applying a strained interpretation to her words. It doesn't work. She used no language to restrict the application of her statement. It is stated as an absolute and used as the justification for supposing that government regulation cannot constitute a government takeover in a specific case.….The government does things all the time that lie outside the scope of its authority. I doubt you need for me to provide you any examples. Just realize the degree to which your argument represents idiocy.….Great lesson in logic, there, champ. It's truly a wonder what you think you can accomplish with contrived examples.….Do I need to spell it out for you?
(December 18, 2010 at 10:14pm)
I should probably ignore Bill based on the content of his post, but I skipped over some truly hilarious stuff that I cannot now resist talking about ...(December 27, 2010 at 5:15pm)….Do *you* want to be taken seriously? If so come up with (at least) one good example in support of what you're saying.(December 31, 2010 at 1:15pm)
It always seems that with “arguing by intimidation” the debater tries to convey he has some “inside” “special” understanding which no one “gets” (except, of course, himself and those who agree with him ideologically). And of course, your intelligence (character?) is impugned and the "joke is on you" because you don’t “get” it. The problem is the debater DOESN’T WANT you to get it….because it’s a ruse. In fact, he really can’t get it himself, because he argues around it and doesn’t provide any real proof on the insistence he doesn’t need to. The goal is, of course, not to convey understanding or to get across a point, but to instill self-doubt in the "adversary"....as a form of intimidation.
So, think about it, if one has to argue from that standpoint, how strong is the truth of their argument?
Post-script: Here's more comments from those who have endured this type of argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment