Argument by gibberish
Argument by gibberish is an informal fallacy in which incomprehensible or irrelevant gibberish is exchanged for a valid argument or used to support a statement or postulation. It often is employed via a word salad of jargon, giving the appearance of either knowledge of the subject or a genuine argument. It is considered an informal fallacy because it is unconvincing, since no argument is conveyed at all. Yet its confusing nature may give the appearance that an argument has been constructed.[1]
Logical form[]
A claims X is true
A supports this assertion via gibberish
Therefore X is true[1]
Occurrences[]
The sovereign citizen movement has been accused of arguing with “legalistic gibberish” as opposed to genuine legal argument.[2]
Richard Dawkins, in a debate against Deepak Chopra, stated that he was “Be[ing] subjected to a kind of word salad of scientific jargon, used out of context, inappropriately, apparently uncomprehendingly”.[3]
Example[]
From the film Spies Like Us, when Emmett Fitz-Hume (Chevy Chase) answers a question from the press:[1]
Well, of course, their requests for subsidies was not Paraguayan in and of it is as it were the United States government would never have if the president, our president, had not and as far as I know that's the way it will always be. Is that clear?
When the press is confused by this response, Fitz-Hume moves on without answering the original question.
References[]
- ^ a b c "Argument by Gibberish". www.logicallyfallacious.com. Retrieved 2021-03-18.
- ^ ""LEGALISTIC GIBBERISH"". Taishoff Law. 2014-03-13. Retrieved 2021-03-22.
- ^ Richard Dawkins irritated by irrationality, retrieved 2021-03-22
 | This logic-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by . |
- Informal fallacies
- Jargon
- Nonsense
- Logic stubs