14

Often, in a dispute, people only suggest their point without ever articulating it.

An awful lot of people actually do that. This makes any rational debate impossible (if you second guess, they can deny having said that).

Is there a name for this sort of fallacy?

Some definitions, to help the reader...

Articulate tr. v. - 10. to give clarity or coherence to: to articulate an idea.

Suggest tr. v. - 2. To express or say indirectly: The police officer seemed to be suggesting that the death was not an accident.

Speakpigeon
  • 7,364
  • 1
  • 11
  • 26
  • 10
    The boundary between "suggest" and "articulate" is vague, and both parties often accuse each other of being on the wrong side of it. All articulation is inherently vague to lesser or greater extent, so everybody does "that" of necessity, and rational debate better be possible in its presence. Shared context is often used to resolve the vagueness sufficiently, and when it is not enough requests for clarification are expected be made and responded to. Unresponsiveness to such requests is often called evasion. – Conifold Mar 07 '20 at 23:35
  • 5
    internet forum fallacy? – PatrickT Mar 09 '20 at 08:59
  • 8
    Can you give an example of this tactic? – user253751 Mar 09 '20 at 11:21
  • 1
    One can well articulate a suggestion. They are not mutually exclusive. As your definitions state, "to articulate an idea" - if the idea happens to be a suggestion that the death was not an accident; it could be done well "I'm not sure this was an accident" or poorly "I ain't sure that the deff were done accidental like". – UKMonkey Mar 09 '20 at 11:43
  • In a way it's a kind of like "motte and bailey". – workerjoe Mar 09 '20 at 12:40
  • I'm not sure there is a formal fallacy associated; but it could be considered arguing in bad faith with an intent to mask such problems as "moving the goal posts" or equivocation. – Uueerdo Mar 09 '20 at 16:26
  • 3
    Obligatory. The adventures of Fallacy Man. https://existentialcomics.com/comic/9 – Stewart Mar 09 '20 at 19:55
  • 1
    Could you give an example (without mentioning any current president)? – Mawg says reinstate Monica Mar 10 '20 at 07:31

7 Answers7

38

First, my standard observation that the term 'fallacy' is often misused. A fallacy, properly put, is a mistake in the structure of an argument that makes a claim invalid without considering the sense or meaning of the argument. You're actually asking about a rhetorical tactic: an effort to persuade someone (reasonably or unreasonably) of the 'truth' of a claim as a matter of semantics, not structure. Rhetorical tactics are a normal part of argumentation — the only reason we make arguments is to convince others of senses and meanings — but note the irony that misusing the term fallacy is itself a bit of a rhetorical trick.

That aside...

The particular thing you're talking about might be covered by a number of 'informal' fallacies (what I've called 'rhetorical tactics'): begging the question, questionable causal chains, appeal to popular thinking, false equivalence, hasty generalization, or others as yet unspecified. The list of informal fallacies grows and changes over time as people grapple with different kinds of rhetorical ploys.

If you want a general category for this kind of tactic, though, I'd call it argument by implication. The aim of this kind of rhetoric is to imply a reasoning chain without expressing it. Obviously we can't condemn implication, because it's an essential part of logic and reasoning. I'd go so far as to argue that we get the term 'fallacy' (in its proper sense) because the Ancient Greeks laid out the basic forms of simple implication — the extension of properties from categories to their members — and noted which forms were valid and which invalid. But pernicious implication is common enough, and generally falls into a few different types:

  • Invoking bias: conforming to listeners' biases, so that they will accept a conclusion without needing to hear the reasoning explained
  • Weaponizing ambiguity: using vague pointing to force opponents to do all of the cognitive work, since the opponent must lay out the implied reasoning before s'he can critique it
  • Deflecting accountability: attributing unexpressed arguments to vague or absent others, who are implicitly assumed to have plausible justifications

In short, pernicious implication uses natural forms of cognitive laziness — the preference for mental shortcuts and the resistance to heavy cognitive work that all of us are inclined towards — to get listeners to mislead themselves.

Of course, be aware of the opposite side of this coin — argumentative dissection — in which someone refuses to accept any form of implication, and demands proof or evidence for even the most trivial extensions of reasoning. Sometimes these are even used in tandem, where someone makes vague, general statements and then demands that others prove them wrong according to impossible standards. There is a cautious balance: one should say enough to make an argument clear, but not get caught in the trap of over-explaining.

The best approach I've found to dealing with people who use pernicious implication is to feign (or actually practice) open-minded ignorance. Tell them you don't follow their point and ask them to explain; pester them with questions to draw out the unexpressed reasoning; challenge their egos with little jabs like "Seriously? That's the best explanation you can give?". The goal is to force them out of that fortress of cognitive laziness onto the open field of expressed ideas where (more likely than not) they have few skills; people with real argumentation skill rarely hide behind implication.

Ted Wrigley
  • 19,410
  • 2
  • 22
  • 55
  • Thanks for your answer. 1. Argument by implication is not in itself a fallacy. It is when the implication is fallacious. However, in the case I consider in my question, the implication is not even made explicit. It is only suggested. - 2. Similarly, the pernicious implication could not be characterised because it is not even articulated. – Speakpigeon Mar 08 '20 at 17:01
  • @Speakpigeon: That's the point, though. Even though it's not articulated, you still 'get' the implication enough to know where it's going. – Ted Wrigley Mar 08 '20 at 18:47
  • 4
    I think it is a fallacy; a syllogism requires all of its steps to be stated. If you say "All dogs are mammals, and we all know what animal Snoopy is, so Snoopy is a mammal", then that arguably is not a valid syllogism, and thus fallacious, as "Snoopy is a dog" is not explicitly asserted. – Acccumulation Mar 08 '20 at 23:25
  • 2
    @Acccumulation That is not what the inventor of syllogisms thought, see Enthymeme. When a premise is common knowledge or can be inferred from context it can be skipped. And spelling out all the steps would make most ordinary conversations and arguments completely impractical. – Conifold Mar 09 '20 at 05:45
  • @Conifeld I think it is still a fallacy when the unstated premise isn't well-known. You might be able to get away with not stating that Snoopy is a dog. But you shouldn't be able to away with not stating that immigrants are criminals (for example). "The Democrats are okay with immigrants, and we all know what immigrants are like, so we all know what the Democrats will cause to happen." is *not* valid. How do you attack that? "Actually we don't all know what immigrants are like." "Well then go and do your research before you come to a debate next time." – user253751 Mar 09 '20 at 12:25
  • 2
    Your "fortress of cognitive laziness" and "open field of expressed ideas" have also been called motte and bailey. – workerjoe Mar 09 '20 at 12:44
  • @user253751: acknowledging that this is poor reasoning, it is still not properly a 'fallacy.' Fallacy is a restricted term that only has meaning within the context of syllogistic logic. It's a low-level construct that isn't normally used in high-level argumentation. I'm not disagreeing with your point, merely with your language use. – Ted Wrigley Mar 09 '20 at 13:59
  • Your claim in this answer implies that Douglas Walton, quoted in Adam Sharpe's answer, is misusing the term "fallacy", correct? – probably_someone Mar 09 '20 at 15:09
  • @probably_someone: Yes, Walton misused the term, because he was speaking loosely at that point. As I said, the misuse is common. I'm reasonably certain that if you pressed Walton on the point he would make the same observations I have, but shrug off his usage as acceptable for his context. I'm not trying to make a huge issue out of this, but it is important to recognize the distinction between a rhetorical ploy and a fallacy, if only because the term 'fallacy' has a cachet of a truth-claim, which can be used rhetorically (and improperly) in argumentation. – Ted Wrigley Mar 09 '20 at 15:23
  • Laying a "false" straw man could be a tactic that might be considered deliberately vague. Claiming that your opponent implies B when they imply A but what you really want them to do is justify why A is different from B. – Crazymoomin Mar 09 '20 at 20:16
  • @user253751 In your example the problem is not the lack of articulation (innuendo), after all, it is fairly clear from context that immigrants are asserted to be bad, and the argument's steps are spelled out enough to reconstruct it. In fact, the argument is valid: if immigrants are (mostly) bad and Democrats indulge them then bad things are likely to happen under Democrats. The problem is that the premises are false: immigrants are not (mostly) bad, and Democrats do not necessarily indulge even those who are. So it is they that should be challenged, not lack of articulation. – Conifold Mar 09 '20 at 23:29
  • @Conifold The problem is that "we all know what immigrants are like" is plausible deniability. If you assert that this means "we all know that immigrants are bad", now you are the one saying that immigrants are bad, not the opposition. It also lets the opposition get away with not needing to argue to prove that immigrants are bad, since they haven't actually said it. – user253751 Mar 11 '20 at 12:13
  • @user253751 Spelling out what the opponent says does not make one assert it, this is what indirect speech device is for. Indeed, one should state disagreement and challenge it right away. Let them then deny that this is what was meant, implausibly, and tangle themselves into trying to explain what it did mean. It is chasing after the side issue of innuendo that lets them get away with it. Turning the tables lets one hang them on their own implications, however they were "actually said", and putting opponent on the defensive is always to one's advantage. – Conifold Mar 11 '20 at 12:39
  • @Conifold The opponent did not say that immigrants are bad. That's the problem. Also getting repeated denials from your opponent can make you look bad. "So you're saying that immigrants are bad?" "Nope." "So you're saying that immigration is bad?" "Nope." "So what are you saying?" "I'm saying we all know what immigrants are like." "So you're saying ..." "Look, Cathy Newman, I don't have time to play these stupid leftist games where you put strawmen in my mouth. I think the fact that you're playing this game shows quite clearly that you have run out of sensible arguments." – user253751 Mar 11 '20 at 12:42
  • @user253751 That does make you look bad, because you put yourself on the defensive. A distinction is whether the debate is conducted in good faith, or it is a rhetorical exercise in front of an audience. In the latter case, which seems to be what you have in mind, asking for clarification of obvious innuendo is counterproductive. Instead "My opponent suggests that immigrants are bad, and Democrats indulge them. Well, I disagree..." and proceed with your arguments why. If they want to go with "that's not what I meant", good luck. But this is about rhetorical tactic, not mistakes in reasoning. – Conifold Mar 11 '20 at 21:22
  • I believe Ted Wrigley's answer to be spot on, and aptly elaborated upon by the discussion thread between @Conifold and user253751, which I found to be utterly brilliant. The nefariousness of the rhetorical tactic of claim making while maintaining plausible deniability does, as Conifold suggests, depend upon whether the debate is conducted in good faith, or it is a rhetorical exercise in front of an audience. Problem is that it's often difficult to distinguish the one from the other. Difficult to tell what each debater is up to. – gonzo Mar 14 '20 at 19:44
  • for instance, @user253751 references the Newman/Peterson "debate," "Look, CN, I don't have time to play these...games where you put strawmen in my mouth. I think the fact that you're playing this game shows quite clearly that you have run out of sensible arguments." This caused me to go back and listen to that interview again in the context of the question at hand -- was Peterson engaged in pernicious implication and intentionally making nefarious plausibly deniable claims, or was Newman in fact straw manning Peterson's claims. Was one in good faith and the other playing to an audience? – gonzo Mar 14 '20 at 19:53
  • @Conifold Saying "nope" to everything makes you look bad, but flipping it around to say that your opponent is actually the problem does seem to work quite well for lots of people. You could also try expanding the "nope". "No, I'm not saying that, I'm saying that we all know what immigrants are like." [implied: "are you really so fucking stupid that I have to repeat my point twice?"] – user253751 Mar 15 '20 at 23:40
12

Douglas Walton calls this the fallacy of plausible deniability. It seems that this terminology is his own, and not standard (at least, a quick Google search for "fallacy of plausible deniability" doesn't reveal too much other than his own article Plausible Deniability and Evasion of Burden of Proof). Walton writes:

In everyday argumentation, propositions are often brought forward as suggestions or provisional hypotheses, rather than as outright assertions. In many instances of argumentation, especially in practical deliberations, the evidence for or against a particular proposition may be insufficient to categorically deny or assert it as true. However, if, at any particular point in a dialogue, there is no overwhelming evidence against the proposition, and there is some small weight of evidence put forward in favor of it, a speaker may propose the proposition as a suggestion, and the hearer may provisionally accept it on that basis.

When suggestions are put forward, they are accepted tentatively rather than wholeheartedly (in Hamblin's sense). This means they are accepted provisionally, i.e. they are accepted as presumptions holding at that point, and for some subsequent points in the dialogue, but they may later be given up or rejected.

...

One often notices in the study of fallacies how plausible deniability is preserved by ambiguity, and other deceptive or confusing techniques that enable an arguer to keep the back door open, should one's argument be directly confronted or challenged. A good example is the ad baculum argument, a form of sophistical technique that typically takes the form of an indirect speech act, e.g. "I would stop advocating that policy if I were' you, because the last person who persisted in advocating it wound up on the bottom of the river in a cement coating." When confronted with having made a threat, the ad baculum arguer replies: "That wasn't a threat. I was only giving you some good advice - this is a dangerous city!" Here the use of the indirect speech act leaves the fallacy committer a back door open for plausible deniability. Threats tend to be highly contextual, and it has proved to be a legal problem to pin them down with evidence in specific cases.

Of course, whether this is a fallacy or not depends on context. Sometimes in conversation I explore an idea that I haven't really thought too much about by making such "suggestions", without wanting to commit myself to one position or another. But, as you point out, in the context of a debate or dispute, one ought to try and make one's position clear.

Adam Sharpe
  • 3,824
  • 2
  • 9
  • 36
  • Ah, the expression would be appropriate in this context but it already means something else in very different contexts where the idea is that some official makes sure they can plausibly deny any awareness of illegal or otherwise disreputable acts. The expression suggests dishonesty rather than a flaw in reasoning. – Speakpigeon Mar 08 '20 at 16:42
  • This sounds similar to the Socratic Method. – Parrotmaster Mar 09 '20 at 14:36
  • 2
    One of the reasons people make vague arguments is that it allows them to "move the goalposts" without being noticed. – Monty Harder Mar 09 '20 at 18:59
6

I'm not sure that there is a fallacy here if by 'fallacy' is meant, as standardly in logic, an error of reasoning, flawed reasoning. In the cases you describe the other side doesn't so much argue incorrectly as withdraw from argument by failure to articulate a premise.

A term from rhetoric, aposiopesis, covers at least a range of your cases.

Geoffrey Thomas
  • 35,647
  • 4
  • 43
  • 146
  • 1
  • Aposiopesis The act of breaking off midway through a sentence as if unwilling or unable to continue. Doesn't seem to fit. 2. There is no withdrawal since there is a point. Usually, I qualify this as a red herring as whatever is made explicit is not explicitly relevant. However, it is more than a red herring because what is made explicit suggests something relevant. Relevant but fallacious since it only follows from an irrelevant premise.
    • – Speakpigeon Mar 08 '20 at 16:10
  • I only meant that not completing a sentence is one way of failing to articulate a premise. – Geoffrey Thomas Mar 08 '20 at 18:43