Some arguments cite quantum mechanics as evidence to suppose the existence of a metaphysical being. In order to argue with these people, one would have to study quantum mechanics which is very difficult.

Dialectical materialism adopts a form of metaphysics suggested by Hegel. Even Bertrand Russell admits that Hegel is difficult.

The former uses physics to infer existence in metaphysics; the latter uses metaphysics to predict affairs in the physical world. As Bertrand Russell points out, the belief that metaphysics has any bearing upon practical affairs is a proof of logical incapacity.

I wonder if there is a name for this type of rhetorical device.

  • To anyone who down votes me: please give me an explanation. Thanks. – George Chen Apr 2 '14 at 23:03
  • 1
    Marx built his own dialectic from the ground up within a framework of materialism. He gave credit to Hegel for being the first to construct a dialectical philosophy and Marx was inspired by Hegel, but he did not borrow anything Hegel constructed, least of all his metaphysics. Marx rejected Hegel's metaphysics and constructed what he calls "its direct opposite". [Karl Marx, Capital: Volume One, Afterword to the Second German Edition, 1873] – Marcel Besixdouze Apr 3 '14 at 0:16
  • @Marcel, points taken. I will borrow a phrase from Russell then. – George Chen Apr 3 '14 at 0:30

From standard logical fallacies

Argument from authority (Argumentum ab auctoritate), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common logical fallacy.[1]

it could also be argumentum ad verecundiam. Here the intent is to have you accept the argument due to your ignorance of the subject itself.

| improve this answer | |
  • Thanks @Oldcat. You understand my point well. My immediate feeling is incompetence and unable to raise any objections. It is a little different from deferring to authority. – George Chen Apr 2 '14 at 22:42
  • Argumentum ad verecundiam is appealing to authority whose domain of expertise is other than the subject in question. – George Chen Apr 3 '14 at 5:23
  • Well actually it is very close. – George Chen Apr 3 '14 at 5:28

If one assumes that the arguments must be 'difficult' to follow or the term wouldn't be necessary, argument from false analogy may be the answer you want.

| improve this answer | |
  • I think @Oldcat figured out the intent: to silence me due to my ignorance of the subject. – George Chen Apr 3 '14 at 8:05
  • 1
    Ah, blind somebody with science is a commonly used expression. Though using it may get a bit confusing when trying to apply it to the science-philosophy interface (if any). 'John's a real tiger' is fine, but 'That lion is a real tiger' is best avoided. – Edwin Ashworth Apr 3 '14 at 8:33
  • That's almost exactly what it means. Rhetorically, it has the same effect as calling someone a thinker not a doer, which is an over generous accusation. – George Chen Apr 3 '14 at 17:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.