Proof by Verbosity

ARGUMENTUM VERBOSIUM

(also known as: argument from intimidation [form of], proof by verbosity, proof by intimidation) 

From the excellent resource  "logically fallacious" by Bo Bennett...

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/145-proof-by-intimidation

Description: Making an argument purposely difficult to understand in an attempt to intimidate your audience in accepting it, or accepting an argument without evidence or being intimidated to question the authority or a priori assumptions of the one making the argument.

Logical Form:

Claim A is made by person 1.

Person 1 is very intimidating.

Therefore, claim A is true. 

Example #1:

Professor Xavier says that the egg certainly came before the chicken.  He won the Nobel prize last year for his work in astronomy, and the MMA world championship -- so I don’t dare question his claim. 

Explanation: Professor X sure sounds like a brilliant and tough guy, but that is not evidence for his claim.

Example #2:

Dr. Professor Pete said, with the utmost eloquence, masterful stage presence, and unshakable confidence, that 1+1=3.  Therefore, 1+1=3.

Explanation: Despite the intellectually intimidating presence of Dr. Professor Pete, 1+1 still equals 2.

Example #3:

Person A; The hypothetical possibility of Boltzmann Brains looks less likely given new understandings of string theory and the theory of multiple universes. 

Person B: As much as I welcome your extremely qualified admission that intelligence is part and parcel of reality beyond the scientific processes that you place your faith in to account for "reality", even as that perspective limits itself to defining such only within the framework of its mindless mechanistic perspective, I note that you ignore the bigger issue and its ramifications, that being the suggestion that "intelligence" is part of the overall DNA of the processes of the universe. The universe exhibits all kinds of examples of intelligent input in its creation and governance. It would be extremely unlikely to have occurred--much less maintained--under any other circumstances. Please address such honestly and on topic--thanks!

Explanation: The first sentence alone is 78 words long making it extremely difficult to understand. Further layers of difficulty are added with pseudo-scientific terms such as "mindless mechanistic perspective"; "DNA of the processes of the universe" plus assumptions about intelligent design and so on. None of this seem connected to the point being made about "Boltzmann Brains".

Exception: If you live in a state where you can be killed for asking questions, then this is not a fallacy, but a survival technique.

Tip: If you live in a state where you can be killed for asking questions, move.

Variation: The argument from intimidation is more directed at questioning one’s sense of morality if they don’t agree with you.

Surely you don’t like to kill babies, do you?  Then surely you will join my pro-life campaign.