Become an active member of our fallacy-discussing community (or just become a lurker!)
Description: A claim masquerading as proof or evidence, when no such proof or evidence is actually being offered.
Logical Form:
Claim X is made.
Claim X is expressed in such a way where no evidence is forthcoming, or no requests for evidence are welcome.
Therefore, X is true.
Example #1:
Jose writes that "people are mostly good at heart." The author is simply wrong.
Explanation: The arguer states that the author is "simply wrong" yet offers no reasons. Words and phrases such as "simply," "obviously," "without question," etc., are indicators that no such evidence will be presented.
Example #2:
Politician X is crooked—this is an indisputable fact known by everyone except politician X's supporters.
Explanation: The language "this in an indisputable fact" is a surrogate for the evidence showing that politician X is crooked.
Exception: Claims that are universally accepted as self-evident truths don't apply.
If you put your penis in a wood chipper, it's going to hurt.
Tip: If you have a penis, don't put it in a wood chipper.
References:
Dowden. (1993). Logical Reasoning Im. Thomson Learning EMEA, Limited.
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.
