Introduction
The “Ad Hoc rescue” fallacy. This occurs when a person tries to rescue their belief or argument, which has been challenged by providing an explanation that lacks evidence or logical reasoning. In this article, I will explain the concept of the fallacy, provide an example, and discuss the consequences of its usage.
Explanation
In Latin, “Ad Hoc” means “for this purpose”. In logical terms, “Ad Hoc” refers to an explanation that is specifically created to defend a belief or argument that has been discredited or challenged. The creation of an “Ad Hoc” explanation can lead to the fallacy of the topic.
The fallacy primarily results from an over-reliance on explanations that lack supporting evidence. The individual presenting the Ad Hoc explanation does so purely to protect their argument or belief without any real basis. The Ad Hoc explanation typically disregards any critical thinking or logical reasoning that questions the argument or belief.
Example
Imagine a situation where a person claims that they possess psychic powers. They perform a few random acts that seem to predict certain events, such as predicting that it will rain and it does indeed rain later that day. However, when asked to display these powers under controlled conditions, they refuse. They provide the Ad Hoc rescue fallacy argument of “I can’t display my powers under controlled conditions because it requires a certain energy that I can’t maintain when people are watching me.”
This Ad Hoc explanation has the distinct purpose of defending their belief, even though they cannot provide any evidence. This explanation is insufficient because it lacks validity and sound reasoning, and is not founded on any empirical evidence.
Conclusions
The Ad Hoc rescue fallacy is a logical fallacy that can weaken and compromise an argument or belief. The construction of Ad Hoc explanations serves to protect the belief or argument holder from scrutiny and is not supported by any logical reasoning or empirical evidence.
The consequences of resorting to the fallacy are dire. It weakens the argument and the critical thinking process and challenges the values of truth. Debaters should be encouraged to support their arguments with sound reasoning backed by evidence.
In conclusion, the use of Ad Hoc rescue explanations to protect beliefs or arguments has significant repercussions. We should seek to understand the Ad Hoc rescue fallacy and develop tools to counteract its potential damage. Only when we provide our ideas with sound reasoning backed by evidence that we can confidently engage in meaningful debate.
