Ad Hoc Rescue
Ad Hoc Rescue is a logical fallacy where one protects a belief by inventing excuses without evidence, despite contrary evidence.
THE IDEA
Ad Hoc Rescue
Also called making shit up or the MSU fallacy, an ad hoc rescue adds an unsupported explanation to protect a belief from contrary evidence. The issue is treating the invented explanation as true merely because it would save the belief.
The source omits its logical form and original example statements.
Example #1
The source describes Frieda adding a reason to preserve her initial claim despite contrary evidence, but it does not include her words or the evidence.
Example #2
The source criticizes an explanation added to a biblical story without support from that story or other evidence. The original question and answer are absent.
Possible Explanations
Proposing a possibility is not the same as accepting it as established. The source challenges “If there is no God, then life is meaningless.” by suggesting that people might find their own meaning. That illustrates offering an alternative possibility rather than proving a complete account.
A useful question is: “What evidence do you have to support that?”
When to use it
In a debate, when an opponent adds unsupported assumptions to protect their argument.
In scientific reasoning, when a theory is modified without empirical justification to fit data.
In personal relationships, when rationalizing someone's behavior without evidence.
In marketing, when defending a product claim despite contradictory evidence.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Frieda's relationship
As an illustration, someone repeatedly excuses a partner’s missed commitments by assuming an emergency occurred, despite having no evidence of one. An emergency is possible; treating it as established solely to protect the belief that the partner is reliable would be an ad hoc rescue.
The biblical flood
As an illustration, someone answers contrary evidence about a proposed flood by asserting, without support, that the flood removed all traces. The added claim protects the account from a challenge but still needs evidence. This is not a recovered version of the missing source example.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Think of a time when you defended a belief against contradictory evidence. Did you come up with any ad hoc explanations?
How can you distinguish a legitimate hypothesis from an ad hoc rescue?
What is the difference between proposing a possible explanation and making an ad hoc rescue?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Logically Fallacious - The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies