How this fallacy is called?

[raivo]

Suppose you claim something and then your opponenet says: "I know you are wrong but...

 

... i have no time to explain or

... those expalnations are so complex that you will not understand or

... i could explain but this does not interest other readers or

... i can not explain because it contains information that should not be disclosed or

whatever like these,

 

and then goes on as if he had proven that you are wrong

 

(of course he could be right but no proof given and no way to discuss it further).

 

How this is called?

[Sayonara]

Dodging the bullet, bowing out, abdicating, abstention...

 

Call it whatever you like - it's just a basic failure to respond, which is not really a logical failing.

[Dak]

hmm... i dont think thats a logical falicy, due to the abscence of logic to be falicious.

 

it just looks like an unsuported assertation to me.

 

if its presented as valid logic, i suppose we could make it a falacy if you want

 

like you'd see on the web:

 

Falliciously unsuported assertation

 

takes the form:

 

p

 

where p may or may not be true.

 

alternatively:

 

not p

 

this is fallicious because without supporting argumentation we have no reason to believe p.

 

examples:

 

fish are blue.

cream is made of cider.

that's wrong, so there

 

 

the bits that go 'because i dont have time/no-ones interested/etc' are just attempts to obfuscate the fact that it's an unsupported assertation (unless they're valid excuses, i suppose)

[J.C.MacSwell]

No, you're all wrong, but I'm too busy to explain. But take it from me, you're all wrong. (even the original poster who was just asking, he's wrong also in a different way but I doubt you'd understand if I told you why)

 

Glad I could help.

[Pangloss]

I could explain but this does not interest other readers.

[mr d]

Hello

 

What you are likely seeing is misdirection or redirection being used. In the old Military or Itelligence lingo it's someone running Pysops (Psychological Operations)

 

Been noticing this quite a bit recently in a few science forums I occasion. The person running the discussion is not there to discuss or debate their question, but rather to insite conflict between other participants.

 

Find often the instigator has some agenda, such as a religious slant to their question, but bundle it into a philosophical or psychological wrapper. Have my suspicions who these people might be, with a new tack being taken to attach their beliefs to older discarded ideas to gain a tad of what antique collectors refer to as provinance.

 

They don't care to discuss it with you because, they are not interested in your opinion. They are ready know their percieved answer, or they are only there to insert the question into the discussion.

 

Let's use for and example the discussion of Creation with

religious and scientific views. Now my goal is to make my religious viewpoint seem like a scientific viewpoint, so I'm not concern with discuss Creation with you as I know the Ultimate Truth. Hence your can not understand the truth, and I can not discuss it with you.

 

What I know is that amoung scientists, many hold religious beliefs as well as being scientists. So your find a wide spectrum of opinions even amoung the scientists. And since they can't come to any agreement, my religious view, which I've merged with this mask of science, can be seen as just as valid as theirs.

 

You'll also see such tactics as taunting, false anger, and fained feelings of persecution. But used to direct you away from noticing they have not answered your question.

 

Old enough to have first hand experience with the Krishnas, Moonies, and Scientology people trying this out in person. Now they have the wonderful world of the internet to explore.

 

Of course other groups maybe employing these tactics besides religious one, many political groups will do the same. And it is not illegal to employ these means. Just need to be careful, as these people have been trained to look for people who may be psycologically vunerable to their operations.

 

Are you down, sad, lonely, disillusioned; why we have the answer here for you. Just let us make all those hard decissions for you, we'll take care of you.

 

Mr D

[DaveC426913]

Suppose you claim something and then your opponenet says: "I know you are wrong but...

Something like "failure to support the claim".

 

The response to this would be "Make your case. If you cannot, then withdraw the point, and all points dependent on it."

 

List of logical fallacies

 

 

Alternately, you can wait until your opponent bases his next point on this one. As soon as he does, you can claim "Hasty Conclusion" i.e. the point is based upon a premise that has not been established yet.