Proof by Intimidation
Proof by intimidation makes an argument deliberately hard to understand so the audience will accept it, or so the speaker can avoid providing evidence. It often involves questioning the audience’s authority or assumptions.
THE IDEA
Proof by Intimidation
argumentum verbosium (also known as: argument from intimidation [form of], proof by verbosity)
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:
Example #1: Explanation: Professor X sure sounds like a brilliant and tough guy, but that is not evidence for his claim.
Example #2: Explanation: Despite the intellectually intimidating presence of Dr. Professor Pete, 1+1 still equals 2.
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.
When to use it
A lawyer uses convoluted legal jargon to confuse a jury about a simple factual discrepancy.
A scientist uses unnecessary technical terminology to dismiss a layperson's valid question about research methodology.
A politician delivers a long, rambling speech full of abstract concepts to avoid giving a clear answer on a policy issue.
A salesperson overwhelms a customer with detailed specifications and acronyms to justify a high price without addressing the customer's budget concerns.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Professor X's Argument
Professor X sure sounds like a brilliant and tough guy, but that is not evidence for his claim.
Dr. Professor Pete's Argument
Despite the intellectually intimidating presence of Dr. Professor Pete, 1+1 still equals 2.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Can you think of a time when someone used complex jargon or a condescending tone to avoid answering a direct question? How did that affect your perception of their argument?
How can you detect when an argument is being made purposely difficult to intimidate you? What cues should you look for?
What strategies can you use to counter proof by intimidation, such as asking for simpler explanations or identifying the core claim without the embellishment?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Logically Fallacious - The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies