Proof by Verbosity

65 Proof by Verbosity

Phil Smolenski

When the Sun shines upon Earth, 2 major Time points are created on opposite sides of Earth, known as Midday and Midnight. Where the 2 major Time forces join, synergy creates 2 new minor Time points we recognize as Sunup and Sundown. The 4‐equidistant Time points can be considered as Time Square imprinted upon the circle of Earth. In a single rotation of the Earth sphere, each Time corner point rotates through the other 3‐corner Time points, thus creating 16 corners, 96 hours and 4‐simultaneous 24‐hour Days within a single rotation of Earth – equated to a Higher Order of Life Time Cube.

Gene Ray, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube

A proof by verbosity (PVB) – also known as argumentum verbosium and proof by intimidation – is a rhetorical device that seeks to persuade by overwhelming the audience with vast amounts of material, or by making the argument so complex and laden with technical jargon that it makes the argument sound plausible. The presentation makes scrutiny difficult and pressures listeners to accept the conclusion rather than appear unable to understand it. That pressure supplies no evidence that the argument is sound.

The fallacy is nicely epitomized by W.C. Fields, “If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bullshit.” By using deliberately complex reasoning, the speaker is trying to ensure that the audience won’t be able to follow and/or understand the argument. D.S. Maier (2012) describes PVB as a meandering maze of reasoning, which can be made difficult to follow by incorporating a plethora of irrelevant details used to disorient the audience. He concludes that, if, against all odds, an audience member manages to find her way to the conclusion of the argument, the relief of reaching the conclusion may leave her reluctant to reconstruct the torturous route of reasoning needed to question the soundness of the argument adequately. Potentially unsubstantiated claims and invalid inferences and deductions gain an allure of plausibility because it is often too laborious to wade through all the minute details of the argument in order to untangle and verify each of the supporting propositions.

Gene Ray’s (2015) Time Cube is a perfect example of a meandering maze of reasoning. This account reports that Ray offered $10,000 for a refutation without receiving a public challenge during his lifetime. An unclaimed reward would not, by itself, establish his theory. Ray rambles on for page after page, filling his writing with unintelligible terminology and creating such a complex web of reasoning that it obscures everything, including logical defects.

Even though the argument may be entirely obscure, and totally incorrect, the speaker attempts to prey on an audience’s vanity by exploiting its fear of looking ignorant or stupid in the eyes of fellow audience members. The underlying strategy is to shift the burden from the speaker of the complex and verbose argument to the audience members. A PVB succeeds by insinuating that the flaw is not with the argument under consideration but with some potentially dim‐witted members of the audience. Far from being an honest attempt to prove the soundness of an argument, it is an effort by the speaker to persuade the audience through bewilderment since any attempt to clearly articulate the argument may only serve to expose its underlying logical flaws and substantive inaccuracies.

An extensive list of obscure references can also discourage scrutiny. References are useful when they support identifiable claims; their number alone does not establish the argument. According to John Grant (2015) in Debunk It!, the author is relying on the fact that most people won’t bother undertaking the gargantuan task of checking the sources, knowing full well that most people will accept the dubious scholarship at face value. If someone is looking to commit the fallacy, Michael Wilkinson (2014) recommends citing something with a very impressive name, offering up the Craske‐Trump Theorem as a promising candidate. The key is to cite the theorem in a tone implying that anyone in the field should know what it is.

PVB is a favorite device among conspiracy theorists who utilize it to obfuscate the weakness of their case. By supporting their theories with so much random information (and misinformation), it gives the impression that their position is superficially well researched and supported by an avalanche of evidence. 9/11 “Truthers” will often roll out a barrage of alternative (and wildly inconceivable) explanations or will present some fanciful account that questions the veracity of the official story. Faced with an overabundance of claims, it becomes hopeless even to begin to respond intelligibly to each individual claim. Being unable (or more accurately, unwilling) to counter the “Truthers’” position, may give the impression that their argument is irrefutable.

Sometimes PVB takes the form of a proof by intimidation, especially when an argument is made using sophisticated insider jargon, or when a complex and long‐winded argument is made by an eminent scholar in the field. The appeal to authority (see Chapter 32), coupled with the verbose nature of the argument, is meant to shock and awe the audience into submission. Audience members may be too intimidated by the speaker’s stature, or the complexity of the argument to question its conclusions, opting instead to accept it as correct. Consider Rush Limbaugh’s comments from his October 14, 2015 show:

The reason you don’t see huge lines of people waiting in soup lines in this depression is why? Let me just ask you. And let me give you a number […]. Now, granted, population of the country was less than it is today. There were 12.8 million Americans unemployed during the Great Depression. These were the men pictured in those soup lines. Today, there are 46 million Americans unemployed. And 94 million not working. I don’t care what – now these 46 million people, these are the counted unemployed, this is the U‐3 number. The counted unemployed represent 14 percent of the population. There are 23 million households on food stamps. There are 123 million households in America and 23 million of them are on food stamps. Therefore 19 percent of all households in America require food stamp assistance to survive.

In the spirit of overwhelming the opposition, a PVB can be committed by employing a litany of numbers and statistics. Figuring out precisely how the number of people that are currently unemployed explains why we don’t see people waiting in soup lines is anything but clear. Even if we’re able to cobble together the connection, we’re still faced with the daunting task of verifying the accuracy of Limbaugh’s numbers and the credibility of his sources. Reluctance to check each claim can make the reasoning seem harder to challenge, but leaves its accuracy and relevance unresolved. Now consider Donald Rumsfeld’s words from a February 12, 2002 interview:

Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know. […] The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The distinctions between what is known, recognized as unknown, and not yet recognized can be useful. They do not themselves establish whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The concern in this example is that discussing uncertainty can displace the requested evidence. To assess the reply, ask which conclusion it supports and how, rather than treating the terminology alone as fallacious.

To make an argument easier to assess, state the conclusion, identify the premises that support it, and explain the inferences. Define necessary technical terms and make sources traceable to specific claims.

When faced with a barrage, ask the speaker to identify the claim that matters most and its strongest evidence. Difficulty answering every detail does not shift the responsibility for supporting the argument to the audience.