Difference between revisions of "Naked assertion"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "<hide> page type::article thing type::rhetorical deception category:rhetorical deceptions </hide> ==About== In debate, a naked assertion is a claim present...") |
m |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
[[page type::article]] | [[page type::article]] | ||
[[thing type::rhetorical deception]] | [[thing type::rhetorical deception]] | ||
| − | [[category:rhetorical | + | [[category:rhetorical deception]] |
</hide> | </hide> | ||
==About== | ==About== | ||
| − | In [[debate]], a [[naked assertion]] is a claim presented with no supporting [[evidence]]. Naked assertions are often phrased in such a way as to sound informed, authoritative, | + | In [[debate]], a [[naked assertion]] is a claim presented with no supporting [[evidence]]. Naked assertions are often phrased in such a way as to sound informed, authoritative, and [[objective]] without actually providing any supporting argument. |
Naked assertions are like a [[circular argument]] of zero circumference, i.e. they don't even attempt to assert a premise from which a conclusion can be drawn, but merely assert the conclusion with a bit of window-dressing added. | Naked assertions are like a [[circular argument]] of zero circumference, i.e. they don't even attempt to assert a premise from which a conclusion can be drawn, but merely assert the conclusion with a bit of window-dressing added. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
* "A careful and objective analysis of the available evidence suggests that ''[!X]'' is by far the most likely occurrence." | * "A careful and objective analysis of the available evidence suggests that ''[!X]'' is by far the most likely occurrence." | ||
* "Even if ''[X.premise]'' is true, ''[!X]'' seems orders of magnitude more likely than any sort of ''[X]''. | * "Even if ''[X.premise]'' is true, ''[!X]'' seems orders of magnitude more likely than any sort of ''[X]''. | ||
| + | ==Links== | ||
| + | ===Reference=== | ||
| + | * {{!in|wikipedia}} | ||
| + | * {{!in|rationalwiki}} | ||
| + | * [http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Logical_Fallacies_by_Todangst#Naked_Assertions_and_Related_Fallacies FreeThoughtPedia] | ||
| + | ===Essays=== | ||
| + | * [http://www.worldofdreamers.com/scientific_method.shtml Believe in the Scientific Method? Why or Why Not?] "This form of argument is known as a naked assertion, which is when an argument is made by asserting the explanation without empirical evidence, or with incoherent logic." (links to FreeThoughtPedia for definition of "naked assertion") | ||
Latest revision as of 13:22, 3 August 2021
About
In debate, a naked assertion is a claim presented with no supporting evidence. Naked assertions are often phrased in such a way as to sound informed, authoritative, and objective without actually providing any supporting argument.
Naked assertions are like a circular argument of zero circumference, i.e. they don't even attempt to assert a premise from which a conclusion can be drawn, but merely assert the conclusion with a bit of window-dressing added.
Valid Usage
Although it is not a valid form of argument, it is perfectly reasonable to make a naked assertion as a statement of opinion within the context of an informal discussion. This should not affect the outcome of any debate taking place, however.
Examples
Where a conclusion X is being argued against:
- "A careful and objective analysis of the available evidence suggests that [!X] is by far the most likely occurrence."
- "Even if [X.premise] is true, [!X] seems orders of magnitude more likely than any sort of [X].
Links
Reference
Essays
- Believe in the Scientific Method? Why or Why Not? "This form of argument is known as a naked assertion, which is when an argument is made by asserting the explanation without empirical evidence, or with incoherent logic." (links to FreeThoughtPedia for definition of "naked assertion")