I'm trying to find the name of any logical fallacy that involves claiming that the opposition hasn't done enough research to effectively participate in the debate. I've read through a hundred or so fallacies and haven't found a close one.

Statements exemplifying this attitude:

  • "Please don't respond unless you've read all the materials I've posted on the topic."
  • "If you ever do as much studying as I have, you'll come to the same conclusion."
  • "You wouldn't think that if you knew as much as I do."

I feel like it's somewhat related to "The Snow Job" fallacy (overwhelming the audience with marginally-relevant information) in that it requires the opponent to shovel through a lot of specific material in order to participate, but that's not quite it.

It may also be somewhat related to "Argument from Authority" in that the perpetrator often requires the opposition to consume materials from lots of different "authorities" on the topic (as the perpetrator would believe them to be), however I'm more focused on the unreasonable and ill-defined request that the opposition "do as much research as I have."

  • 1
    It's appeal to authority, but this is not a logical (formal) fallacy. If you really want to classify it as formal fallacy, it would be a non sequitur ("you haven't studied enough, therefore your answer is wrong", the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise)
    – armand
    Sep 14 at 6:06
  • 2
    What you describe is a tactic that combines bulverism ("assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error") with poisoning the well (presenting information with the intent of discrediting or ridiculing the opponent). It is also similar to how loaded questions work, although in this case we have a loaded request. But the claim itself is not a fallacy (mistake in reasoning), it can even be true.
    – Conifold
    Sep 14 at 8:38
  • Thanks for the question Watson! An argumentative fallacy should be thought of as something that skews the direction of an argument. If someone has a form of thinking that disposes them towards arguments of certain fallacious types, then we might instead think of them as using a kind of Bias or Heuristic, but these things aren't themselves called "fallacies". A fallacious argument would be something like "P1: You think X. P2: You haven't done as much reading as you need to. C: ¬X", and I would call this an example of Poisoning the Well ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well ) Sep 14 at 11:46
  • See also Gish gallop (not a fallacy) - where one presents so much "research" that you can't plausibly even attempt to respond to all of it.
    – user253751
    Sep 14 at 11:50
  • 1
    See also thought-terminating cliché
    – user253751
    Sep 14 at 11:50

Your Answer

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.