ipsedixitism

Ipsedixitism is the pejorative term for an unsupported rhetorical assertion; it is a term in logic for a missing argument.

An ipsedixitism is not explicitly defined as an axiom, and certainly not as a premise, but often appears as such in a syllogism like: "The economy needs more scientists, so expansion of science education will boost the future economy". The proposition rests on an ipsedixitism unless reasons are given that the "economy needs more scientists".

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 was strong "even without reason".

Etymology

Jeremy Bentham adapted the Latin "Ipse dixit" ("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 were, "conviction syndromes" ([1]). This is the word's origin in its modern sense. The earlier use of Ipsedixitism by the Averroists had a separate meaning, as their dialectic method.

Typical causes of ipsedixitisms

• The ipsedixitism is a self-referential appeal to authority. As in:
  • "Trust me..."
  • Without reasoning or citations, the first sentence in this definition would be an 'ipsedixitsm'.
• A naïve ipsedixitism is not intentional, such as:
  • The ipsedixitism is an implicit assumption, accidentally made explicit.
  • The ipsedixitism presumes general agreement, as in a homily.
  • The ipsedixitism is unstated dogma, or believed to be a matter of fact, e.g: "As a human carcinogen, DDT must be banned worldwide."
• The ipsedixitism is a stubbornly unsupported repetition of a disputed claim, asserting the user's power¹ or disinterest in objections.
• The ipsedixitism is a deliberate sophistry, attempting to smuggle assertions into an argument.

Ipsedixitisms are given as though absolutely no supporting argument is 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 held that a particular 'formula' for rejecting tax adjustment appeals was the "apotheosis of ipsedixitism", because no evidence was presented 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).

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 challenged². For reasons of concision, assertions in slogans and sound bites rarely cite sources, or supporting argument, but are not automatically ipsedixitisms because they have been taken out of a context in which support was offered for them.

To be an ipsedixitism a statement must be presented without the semblance of an argument. Any defense, even by fallacy or fraud, except self-reference, means that an assertion is not an ipsedixitism.

As self-reference

Ipsedixitism is sometimes defined more loosely to include any self quotation, even when the original argument is well founded. In this case it can simply be a criticism of excessive pride or self-obsession.

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 to Ipsedixitism as it is 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.

Rhetorical remedies

If faced with naïve Ipsedixitism, one solution is Socratic Irony, as this approach is likely to encourage the dogmatist to elaborate away from simple re-assertion of dogma, or to realize that assumptions have been made.

See also

• Humpty Dumpty

"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

Footnotes

¹ 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. An analogous role is played by review courts in modern legal systems with the power to re-interpret the law. For example, a 1997 dispute [2] challenged the constitutionality of Indiana’s real property taxation system. The Indiana Supreme Court held that it 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." ([3])

² For example; this dissenting opinion to a 1976 safety commission report accuses two commissioners (Barnanko & 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." ([4])

Donate to Wikimedia