search

Appeal to Self-evident Truth

Description: Making the claim that something is "self-evident" when it is not self-evident in place of arguing a claim with reason. In everyday terms, something is "self-evident" when understanding what it means immediately results in knowing that it is true, such as 2+2=4. The concept of self-evidence is contentions and argued among philosophers based on their ideas of epistemology. This means that what is "self-evident" to one person is not necessarily self-evident to another. However, some ideas are clearly self-evident and some are not.

Logical Form:

Person 1 claims Y without evidence.
Person 2 asks for evidence.
Person 1 claims that Y is self-evident.

Example #1:

Richie: Lord Xylon is the one true ruler of the universe.
Toby: Why do you think that?
Richie: It is self-evident.

Explanation: People often confuse their own subjective feelings and interpretations with self-evidence. Richie may believe that Lord Xylon is the one true ruler of the universe, but his belief cannot be used in place of evidence.

Example #2:

Sara: No human should ever kill another human being.
Dottie: Why not?
Sara: It's self-evident.

Explanation: The fallacy is in the implied claim that the argument needs no evidence or explanation because it is "self-evident."

Exception: This fallacy depends on the claim of “self-evidence” not being self-evident. A claim that it reasonably self-evident would not be fallacious:

Richie: I exist.
Toby: Why do you think that?
Richie: It is self-evident.

Tip: If you can't explain something, that doesn't mean you are dealing with something that is self-evident; it could just be your failure to explain something.

References:

This a logical fallacy frequently used on the Internet. No academic sources could be found. For the concept of self-evidence, the following reference was used:

Kelly, T. (2016). Evidence. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/evidence/

Questions about this fallacy? Ask our community!

Master the "Rules of Reason" for Making and Evaluating Claims

Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.

This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book. 

Take the Online Course