Argument by Gibberish
Also known as: bafflement, argument by (prestigious) jargon, Argumentum ad Gibberum. Refer to the Logically Fallacious website for more information http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies
Description: When incomprehensible jargon or plain incoherent gibberish is used to give the appearance of a strong argument, in place of evidence or valid reasons to accept the argument.
The more common form of this argument is when the person making the argument defaults to highly technical jargon or details not directly related to the argument, then restates the conclusion.
Logical Form:
Person 1 claims that X is true.
Person 1 backs up this claim by gibberish.
Therefore, X is true.
Example #1:
Fortifying the dextrose coherence leads to applicable inherence of explicable tolerance, therefore, we should not accept this proposal.
Explanation: I have no idea what I just wrote, and the audience will have no idea either -- but the audience (depending on who the audience is) will most likely make the assumption that I do know what I am talking about, believe that they are incapable of understanding the argument, and therefore agree with my conclusion since they think I do understand it. This is fallacious reasoning.
Example #2:
The Holy Trinity is the union of three separate persons, yet coexist in unity -- they are consubstantial although just one being, sharing a nature yet distinct, a form of triunity unique to the being of God.
Explanation: This is a classic argument from gibberish. Although the wording may be different, the argument explains nothing in any meaningful way. Rather than exclaiming, “I am sorry, I understand the words, but this makes no sense”, people react in different ways. Maybe it’s because of not wanting to look ignorant. Maybe it’s because they are told they will only understand if their faith is strong enough, and they don’t want to admit to not having enough faith. Or perhaps they feel not understanding this argument could lead to becoming a non-believer (slippery slope fallacy) so they deceived themselves into thinking they understand.
Example #3
If in fact we limited and cosmologically insignificant human creatures can access thought, culture, etc. as a separate component of reality whose existence can neither be defined nor explained by those that insist that the universe consists only of mindless physical processes, that indicates a dimension of reality with its own terms and conditions that are not quantifiable in scientific terms nor from its limited perspective. Applied intelligence--even from our own limited human skills--can result in creations that enhance our limited physical abilities, and dramatically enhance our impact on our environment beyond that which our "mindless" and purely "physical" impact on our world would be. If we limited humans can have such impact through applied intelligence, and given that intelligence is an aspect of reality beyond the purview of a universe of mindless physical processes, what would be the cosmic impact of an applied intelligence extant in another dimension?"
Explanation: This appears to be a convoluted way of saying that if human beings can create things using their intelligence, a cosmic intelligence (God) could have created our universe. Creating such a convoluted statement is a way of deterring any response as it's difficult to extract a meaning to respond to.
Example #4
Why has science not recognized the reality of "intelligence" as an aspect of reality--an aspect of reality that when applied can alter all of the "neat" processes that science bases all of their conclusions on given their own "mindless mechanistic" perspective and purview? As a matter of fact, all "scientific" conclusions involve thinking processes that "science" is unable to define or account for outside of its limited and inadequate purview. How ironic it is that "science"--which is completely dependent for its insights on human thinking processes--not only fails to acknowledge this dependence on processes that form the basis of its purview but further chooses to define such processes within its own redefined limited purview which ignores that basis: a classic example of closed, limited, and circular reasoning!
Explanation: Reading between the lines, the message appears to be that science cannot explain intelligence. But it's hard to tell.
Exception: Some arguments require some jargon or technical explanations.
Tip: Remember that good communication is not about confusing people; it’s about mutual understanding. Don’t try to impress people with fancy words and jargon, when simpler words will do just fine. And always remember - if you can't explain something simply, you probably don't understand it well enough yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment