| Argument by Gibberish |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Fallacies of Ambiguity
>
Argument by Gibberish
|
Logical Fallacy of Argument by Gibberish / Bafflement / Prestigious JargonBafflement is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. There is no reason to trust either logic or math without Divine revelation. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma. This is a fallacy that superimposes another level of fallacy on top or one or more of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. The logical fallacy of argument by gibberish occurs when someone uses obscure language or normal words used in an uncommon way without defining the words. The result is that they become incomprehensible. Some people may be intimidated into accepting whatever they conclude as being true, not wanting to admit that they don’t understand the premises. This is the use of ambiguity to persuade. Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Argument by Gibberish / Bafflement / Prestigious JargonUse of scientific jargon suitable for a gathering of scientists when the audience is made up of non-scientists without explaining the meaning of the words being used. Use of theological jargon suitable for a gathering of theologians when the audience is made up of non-theologians without explaining the meaning of the words being used. Use of philosophical jargon suitable for a gathering of philosophers when the audience is made up of non-philosophers without explaining the meaning of the words being used. Use of seldom-used words, many per sentence, to impress people with your marvelous vocabulary—and to make them think that your premise is true when, in fact, it cannot be verified by any known method. Use of logic jargon suitable for a gathering of logicians when the audience is made up of non-logicians without taking time to explain the meanings of these words. This is often done to deceive through bafflement. 
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionAmbiguity Barnum Effect Ambiguous Assertion Innuendo Sly Suggestion Syntactic Ambiguity Lexical Ambiguity Homonymy Shingle Speech Use-Mention Error Double Entendre Misuse of Etymology Garden Path Ambiguity Squinting Modifier Quantifier Shift Illicit Observation Metaphorical Ambiguity Euphemism Equivocation Redefinition Middle Puzzle Part Idiosyncratic Language Type-Token Ambiguity Misconditionalization Modal Scope Fallacy Scope Fallacy Ambiguous Middle Hypnotic Bait and Switch Definist Fallacy Defining a Word in Terms of Itself Socratic Fallacy Defining Terms Too Broadly Defining Terms Too Narrowly Failure to Elucidate Persuasive Definition Composition / Exception Fallacy Division Etymological Fallacy Nominalization Inference from a Label Pigeonholing Fallacy Category Mistake Conjunction Fallacy Disjunction Fallacy Information Overload Proof by Verbosity Confusing Contradiction with Contrariety Type-Token Ambiguity Conceptual Fallacy Mistaking an Entity for a Theory Butterfly Logic Process-Product Ambiguity Recently Viewed |
