Ipsedixitism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rhetoricians use the term ipsedixitism to label (pejoratively) an unsupported rhetorical assertion; logicians use it in the case of a missing argument.
Someone guilty of perpetrating an ipsedixitism does not explicitly define it as an axiom, and certainly not as a premise, but often appears presented in syllogistic form, as: "The economy needs more scientists, so expansion of science education will boost the future economy". The proposition rests on an ipsedixitism unless the speaker gives reasons why "the economy needs more scientists".
Contents |
[edit] Origin
Cicero, in De Natura Deorum (I, 10), refers to Pythagoras's students debating, saying "ipse dixit", that is, "he said it himself", speaking of Pythagoras, whose authority they considered strong "even without reason".
[edit] Etymology
Jeremy Bentham adapted the Latin "Ipse dixit" ("He himself said [it]") into the word ipsedixitism, which he coined to apply to all non-utilitarian political arguments. He believed that all such arguments (especially from 'natural laws') boiled down to unsupported assertions, and represented "conviction syndromes".[1] This accounts for the word's usage in its modern sense. The earlier use of Ipsedixitism by the Averroists had a separate meaning, as their dialectic method.
[edit] Typical causes
- An ipsedixitism offers a self-referential appeal to authority. As in:
- "Trust me..."
- A naïve ipsedixitism lacks intentionality, such as:
- The ipsedixitism appears as a stubbornly unsupported repetition of a disputed claim, asserting the user's power[2] or disinterest in objections.
- The ipsedixitism can result from deliberate sophistry, attempting to smuggle assertions into an argument.
Ipsedixitisms appear in discourse as though absolutely no supporting argument seems necessary. One motivation for not supporting declarations is the hope that it will make the declaration less visible, particularly in an obfuscated chain of mathematical or legal reasoning. For instance, the 1998 Indiana tax court labelled a particular formula for rejecting tax adjustment appeals as the "apotheosis of ipsedixitism", because the Court saw no evidence that this formula reliably converted tax assessors' criteria into the conditions necessary for appeal-rejection (the connection had simply been stated as a bald ipsedixitism in an obscure tax code sub-section).
[edit] Non-ipsedixitisms
Modern dictionaries dramatically narrow the class by associating it with arbitrary, dogmatic belief, implying that the argument has been repeated after having been challenged.[3]
For reasons of concision, assertions in slogans and sound bites rarely cite sources, or supporting argument, but they do not automatically class as ipsedixitisms if taken out of a context which offered some sort of support for them.
To rank as an ipsedixitism a statement must appear without the semblance of an argument. The presence of any defense — even by fallacy or fraud — except self-reference precludes classifying an assertion as an ipsedixitism.
[edit] As self-reference
Some people[who?] define ipsedixitism more loosely to include any self-quotation, even in a well-founded original argument. In such cases the label ipsedixitism can simply serve as a criticism of excessive authorial pride or self-obsession.
[edit] Ipse dixit
The prescriptive linguist Robert Lowth called the examples of English usage on which he based his 1762 prescriptions "ipse dixits" to appeal to the authority of the writers he quoted, which has a slightly different sense and exemplifies an argument by example. However, the Latin phrase is still used in a literal translation, and as a synonym for Ipsedixitism; Mr A says that something is true because he says it is, and B tells C that this isn't good enough because only Mr A's own words back him up.
[edit] Rhetorical remedies
If faced with naïve Ipsedixitism, one may resort to Socratic Irony, as this approach can encourage dogmatists to elaborate away from simple re-assertion of dogma, or to realize that they may have made assumptions.
"When I use a word” Humpty Dumpty said, "...it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less."
- Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland
[edit] See also
[edit] Footnotes
- ^ "A Brief Chronology of Collectivism" by Eric Samuelson (October 1997). Retrieved 2008-02-26
- ^ Some political or philosophical doctrines hold that no truth exists beyond that approved by authorities (who may have the power to 'redefine reality'). In these systems, the authority's edicts are "true" because they are ipsedixitisms. Review courts play an analogous role in modern legal systems with the power to re-interpret the law. For example, a 1997 dispute challenged the constitutionality of Indiana’s system of taxing real property. The Indiana Supreme Court held that the system violated the Indiana Constitution, because: "the only standard that is ascertainable is one of ipsedixitism: 1) value is whatever the State Board’s regulations declare it to be, and 2) the State Board’s regulations can be modified and interpreted in any manner that the State Board wishes." (Indiana Tax Court Cause No. 49T10-9701-TA-00086, retrieved 2008-02-26)
- ^ For example; a dissenting opinion to a 1976 safety-commission report accuses two commissioners (Barnanko and Cleary) of relying on an unsupported assertion: "The same holds true for the Barnako-Cleary ipsedixitism — repeated again in this case — concerning the status of an unreviewed Judge's decision. Not once have they ever cited any authority for that assertion."
