Rhetorical figure / argumentative strategy: Classical term needed

January 28, 2018 11:27 AM

Any rhetoricians here? How is the following rhetorical figure called: Person A asks a difficult and complicated question and hopes to obtain a well-founded answer. Person B answers in an even more complicated and longish manner, obfuscating the fact that he / she is not able to comply with A’s expectation. Now, "obfuscation" is not the word I’m looking for, nor is "obscuration" or "overcomplication" (what comes closest to the strategy itself). What I need should be classical technical term like "reductio ad absurdum". Shouldn’t such a terminus exist, given the tradition (and the ongoing prevalence) of this figure?
posted by megob to Writing & Language (7 answers total)

I don’t think there is one. Or at least nothing nearly so specific. Rhetorical figures are generally structures of phrase, not about tactics or strategy.

We can simply say B is acting in bad faith, and if we want to clarify, it’s because they are intentionally saying a lot but evading the question.

See Wikipedia’s rather comprehensive glossary here.

Like terms of venery and logical fallacies, the names of rhetorical figures are largely for amusement and sounding clever. What’s more important than the name is knowing how to use them (or avoid/counter, etc).

One phrase does come to mind to describe your situation:
If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.
posted by SaltySalticid at 12:11 PM on January 28, 2018 [1 favorite]

Agree. But if you want a label, feel free to fall back on “diversionary gibberish.”
posted by Mr. Justice at 12:14 PM on January 28, 2018 [1 favorite]

I can’t think of a classical term either. “Blinding them with science” would cover the situation though (I often hear it used in non-science contexts to mean “blinding somebody with jargon/complex language”).
posted by tinkletown at 12:56 PM on January 28, 2018

Best answer: A general term for the maneuvers involved might be 'sophistry,' since the technique you describe relies on deploying multiple rhetorical stratagems in the argument, likely including, but by no means limited to, fallacy/non-sequitur, pleonasms, apophasis, tautologies, rhetorical syllogisms, and casuistry.
posted by halation at 1:17 PM on January 28, 2018 [5 favorites]

Dissembling jumped to mind for me immediately.
posted by dbx at 1:30 PM on January 28, 2018 [1 favorite]

Best answer: This corresponds roughly to the 36th of Schopenhauer's 38 Stratagems for Winning an Argument. In shortened form this would be "bombast". (No, this isn't a classical technical term.)
posted by Winnie the Proust at 5:05 PM on January 28, 2018 [4 favorites]

is it maybe bullshit?

Frankfurt argues that bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all. Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true.

posted by runt at 12:05 PM on January 29, 2018