Illogicians: A Proposed Taxonomy

With the advent of mass communication, it is now possible to isolate and systematically study the breed of (anti)intellectuals known as the Illogicians. Though illogic has had a long history, it has been poorly documented — a glaring conceptual flaw we will attempt to redress. The richness of Illogic is such that an entire field could be composed from it.

Although we have used the Usenet as a major source for our research, one will find the taxonomy presented below has wide application in communication, be it idle gossip, CNN, or the Weekly World News. In addition, Illogic and its simulation may have major ramifications for artificial intelligence, as it provides insight into how human "reason" operates in reality.

For the novice who may not be able to identify an Illogician on sight, they are characterized by one or more of the traits listed below:

1. Argument ad nauseam.

The Illogician prefers arguments by assertion, rather than proof. Repeated assertion makes the Illogician's position stronger, in size.

E.g. "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right."

Also termed argument in numerus redundus.

a. Argument ex argument redundus.

This argument can be carried out indirectly by making references to another source which makes unproven assertions.

E.g. "And this book says I'm right." and "It's always been tradition.".

2. Argument ab ignoramus.

Counterarguments which point out inconsistencies in the Illogician's stance are ignored. Since stating a position makes it stronger, ignoring an opposing position will weaken the opponent, according to the Illogicians. Similarly, when faced with multiple detractors, Illogicians prefer to continue arguments only with the weakest opponents.

Overgeneralization and stereotyping are related phenomena, as they involve the elimination of troublesome instances which disprove by their very existence the claim.

a. Dismissal cum excretia.

Similarly, opposing sources are to be dismissed offhand as tripe.

E.g. "That's a load of crap." or "He is a lying turd."

C.f. argument via sputo.

b. Argument ex ego.

This is characterized by the Illogician adopting a self-centered position, refusing to accept the thesis that the world may differ from their (often limited) personal experience.

E.g. "I was told that in France the word for bread was pain. Why don't they just call it bread?"

3. Argument ab vacuum.

Defensibility of a position is irrelevant. Criticisms of the Illogician's sources are unforgivable. The corollary to this is that sources should only be alluded to and never explicitly stated when at all possible. The Illogician's sources are unimpeachable as they are unreachable.

E.g. "It said so somewhere in the New York Times recently."

C.f. argument ab origine fictis.

4. Argument via sputo.

A stubborn opponent is best shouted down. The Illogician must have a good, healthy sense of vengefulness and vindictiveness. Personal attacks are developed as a fine art, much like mass bombing.

E.g. the infamous Saturday Night Live quip, "Jane, you ignorant slut".

Incorrectly called argument ad hominem and ungrammatically argument via sputum. Sometimes referred to as argument via vociferatione.

a. Reductio ad argumentum ex detestari.

Sometimes the argument itself can be a means of personal attack. The Illogician will take delight in prompting angry responses, often ceasing to care about the integrity of the argument.

E.g. the infamous Saturday Night Live quip, "Jane, you ignorant slut".

5. Reductio ad abstinentis.

When the Illogician's position is no longer tenable, the Illogician briefly withdraws into solitude in order to reindoctrinate himself or herself. Once this is accomplished, the Illogician then resumes his or her original position without doubt. Some Illogicians are on occasion unable to ever successfully complete reindoctrination.

6. Argument ab origine fictis.

Sometimes, an Illogician will claim to speak on behalf of a numberless group or legion (in general, a group of one referred to in the plural) in order to give a claim the appearance of more defensibility.

E.g. "I speak for the Majority."

a. Argument ex nihilo.: Similarly, the Illogician may manufacture rumors or pass along unfounded rumor in order to strengthen their rhetorical stance. The nature of the rumor may also fit into other categories of Illogical argument.
b. Argument ex deo.: Alternately, an Illogician may point to a higher authority to back up their claims. Whether this authority actually agrees with the Illogician is irrelevant. This stratagem is usually more effective if the authority is credible to the audience, though this is not mandatory.

7. Argument ab attributo fabula.

The Illogician may (falsely) ascribe an untenable or incredible belief or attribute to an opposing group or person in order to discredit opposition.

E.g. "The Evil Empire is a bunch of atheistic devil-worshippers." and "Joe believes the earth is flat."

8. Argument ex terrori.

The Illogician may attempt to invoke irrational fears and beliefs known or suspected to be held by their audience. The Illogician may raise the specter of an unlikely but fearful scenario.

E.g. "Vote for this man and the streets will be filled with drug-crazed criminals."

9. Argument ab quaestio non implicarum.

When faced with a particularly difficult question, the Illogician resorts to subterfuge by silently substituting in its place another question, and instead answers the sometimes radically reinterpreted question.

10. Argument ex Socrates.

Why ever answer a question when one can instead ask a question in turn? This tactic was employed by Socrates to great effect, humiliating his opponents by impaling them upon their own logic. Illogicians, however, lack such mental prowess, though this does not discourage them from trying.

E.g. When asked "Have you stopped beating your wife?" an Illogician might respond "Would you have stopped beating her?"

11. Reductio ad equum non vivendum.

When an Illogician is losing a lengthy argument, the Illogician will declare the argument to be beating a dead horse, with the implication that he or she was actually winning the argument.

Some have said that that an argument is not over until both sides have been forced into reductio ad abstinentum. Of course, physical violence is another means of ending an argument, though it creates problems of its own.

See also the classic compendium on argumentative pedagogy Total Illogic in 30 Days by the British scholar Hiram H. Hoarfroast. Of particular note is the authoritative treatise on graceful transition from the argument ab vacuum to the argument ab origine fictis, i.e. procedo ad posteriorum, first elucidated by the reknowned Greek debater and philosopher Pompecles in his treatise on objective reality and how to subvert it. For comparison, one should also consult the Mann-Randroidt text Objective Reality: I Want It My Way, where they propose a theory to describe objective reality entirely in highly subjective, context-dependent terms and upon this premise attempt to demonstrate the superiority of their moral system to that of a slug.