There is a propaganda technique I have seen in use elsewhere, as with climate change, and certainly with germ theory and vaccinations. I would like give it a name and place it alongside other logical fallacies like ad hominem, post hoc ergo propter hoc, appeal to authority, etc. I think of it as smug arrogance.
It is the technique of argumentation where the proponent of an idea assumes himself right on all matters and therefore immune from criticism. He snidely dismisses criticism, censors opponents, and attach to them such epithets as “conspiracy theorist” or “denier.” He places himself at the center of any issue as a member of a group that has found the truth, and who can never be questioned or doubted. It is anti-scientific in the extreme, as a true scientist suggests a theory and then attempts to disprove that theory. It is inability to disprove that moves a theory into the “settled science” realm, even as it is understood that science is never settled. The smug arrogant person is anti-science in that he does not allow any attempts to disprove his theories, moving them to settled science by mere group consensus, the 97% fallacy.
It is meant to be intimidation, not argumentation. I have decided to call it the argumentum ego sum deus fallacy, or I am right because I am God, or just the God fallacy. Faux has suggested also
- Argumentum ab omnipotentia – Argument from omnipotence
- Argumentum non requiratur – Argument not required
- Argumentum ab superbus surditas – Argument from arrogant deafness
- Cognitiva somno acquiritur surditas – Cognitive sleep acquired deafness
In the end, it is “because I am God.” The people advancing these propaganda techniques are as far from God as Helsinki from Patagonia, but the arrogance is enough to take my breath away. I have known smug and arrogant people, and always underneath lies deep insecurity. It is no different here, but these people who talk in this manner on public forums are never brought down. They are shielded. My simple objective here is to identify them and crush them with exposure and logic.
Please chime in, especially if your skill in Latin is better than my Google translate. Also, in college, I took but one sophomore level course in logic, and I loved it. I would have taken more, but at my small college it was all that was offered.
Below is a video given me by Stephers, an excellent use of exposure of logical fallacies, almost like being in class again.