Argument by gibberish

Cogito ergo sum
Logic and rhetoric

Key articles

* Logical fallacy
* Syllogism
* Argument

General logic

* Category mistake
* Point refuted a thousand times
* Shill gambit
* Cui bono
* Canard
* Confirmation bias

Bad logic

* Argument from authority
* Self-refuting idea
* Escape hatch
* Big words
* Informal fallacy
* False dilemma

v \- t \- e

“”It is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

—William Shakespeare's Macbeth[1]

An argument by gibberish is one that relies on nonsense, inscrutable words, or impenetrable jargon, i.e. gibberish. An argument by gibberish is a formal fallacy and is a type of non sequitur. Because the argument by gibberish is nonsensical, it may also try to rely on an appeal to emotion by verbal inflection, shouting, or use of emotive phrases (e.g., "Hell, I was born here!") that are tangential to the argument.

The form of the argument by gibberish is:

P1: A valid proposition (or potentially a nonsense sentence).

P2: A nonsense sentence.

C: Therefore, X is true.

For example:

P1: The sky is usually blue

P2: Angels are sometimes blue because pixies are sometimes lazy depending on their mood

C: Therefore angels are sometimes the sky

The argument by gibberish differs from word salad in that word salad may or may not be part of an argument. However, word salad can form one or more of the premises/conclusions of arguments by gibberish. The statements may fail in having incoherent premises/conclusions (meaning it may be non-sequitur/unsound).

## Contents

* 1 Background and context
* 2 Validity as a fallacy?
* 3 Examples
* 3.1 From the film Blazing Saddles
* 3.2 From the film Kind Hearts and Coronets
* 3.3 From Time Cube
* 3.4 From TempleOS
* 3.5 From QAnon
* 4 SMOG
* 5 External links
* 6 See also
* 7 References

## Background and context[edit]

If one wants people to understand them, one must balance complexity and precision: complex language can increase our specificity, but it can also hamper it. Writers of gibberish deliberately increase complexity to minimize specificity. They hope that by obscuring their arguments: (a) the audience won't realize that they have nothing to say, or (b) that the audience will think that it is just not clever enough to understand the argument. Writers who wish to avoid gibberish will increase complexity only when there is a marked (and necessary) increase in precision.

## Validity as a fallacy?[edit]

Since an argument by gibberish is, in fact, gibberish, some argue that it isn't technically applicable to call it a "fallacy" per se. One wouldn't call the angry shrieking of a rabid squirrel "fallacious," for example.

## Examples[edit]

### From the film Blazing Saddles[edit]

“”There ain't no way that nobody is going to leave this town! Hell, I was born here and I was raised here… and goddamn it, I'm going to die here! And no sidewinder, bushwhacking, hornswoggling… cracker croaker, is going to ruin my biscuit-cutter!"

—Gabby Johnson from the film Blazing Saddles

Or in syllogistic form:

P1: (unstated from the previous discussion): We are not going to be driven away from this town.

P2: Hell, I was born here…

C: No one is going to leave this town.

### From the film Kind Hearts and Coronets[edit]

“”The church is exceptionally endowed also with items of architectural interest. You will note that our chantry displays the crocketted and finialled ogee, which marks it as very early perpendicular. The bosses to the pendant are typical. And I always say that my west window has all the exuberance of Chaucer without, happily any of the concomitant crudities of his period.

—Parson Henry D’Ascoyne from the film Kind Hearts and Coronets[2]

### From Time Cube[edit]

“”There is no teacher on Earth qualified to teach Nature's Harmonic Simultaneous 4-Day Rotating Time Cube Creation Principle, and therefore, there is no teacher on Earth worthy of being called a certified teacher.

—Time Cube

### From TempleOS[edit]

“”God said 640x480 16 color was a covenant like circumcision.

—TempleOS[3]

### From QAnon[edit]

“”Conf_D-TT_^_v891_0600_yes

_green1_0600
Bunker Apple Yellow Sky [… + 1]
Yes
Godspeed.

—QAnon drop #155[4]

## SMOG[edit]

SMOG (simplified measure of gobbledygook) is a tool for assessing the complexity of language, and from its use, one is better prepared to judge if a piece of text is gibberish or not. SMOG measures the reading level required to understand a text based on the number, on average, of syllables per word.

An example of a text analyzed by SMOG from the heights (or depths, depending on one's skepticism of postmodernism) of cognition comes from Deleuzian philosopher Dr Alberto Toscano:

> The criticism of our time… is indissociable from an investigation and experience of its transcendental field(s), of the (impersonal) tendencies and haecceities which traverse it, as well as the potentialities, utopian ones perhaps, with which our present can be composed. This 'geological' aspect of 'total critique' is essential to a dislocation of the present as atrophy and stultifying repetition of doxa.[5]

SMOG grade of 18.97=post-graduate degree required.[6][5][7]

## External links[edit]

* Argument by Gibberish — Logically Fallacious

## See also[edit]

* Birth Control Is Sinful In The Christian Marriages and also Robbing God Of Priesthood Children!!

## References[edit]

1. ↑ Speech: “Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow” by William Shakespeare via Poetry Foundation.
2. ↑ Transcript #6: Kind Hearts and Coronets Linguetic.
3. ↑ Comment from Terry Davis on /r/Programming
4. ↑ 155 by Q !ITPb.qbhqo 4ch/pol (14-Nov-2017 9:38:48 PM PST) qposts.online (archived from October 21, 2021).
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Discombobulated by Deleuze, I was left dazed and confused. skepticsfieldguide.net, 1 January 2006.
6. ↑ The Sceptic's Field Guide: SMOG by Theo Clark
7. ↑ SMOG

This fallacies-related article is a stub.
You can help RationalWiki by expanding it.