I'm proposing an explanation for phenomenon "A". Other folks say "No need! We already have an explanation for phenomenon A, it's a natural consequence of phenomenon B". Problem is, phenomenon B is also unexplained. I want to call this out in a polite but firm way.

I've thought of:

This pushes the question off onto unexplained "B"

This is merely shifting the burden of explanation.

This is probably a logical fallacy with a Name and Employment History, but I can't think what it is. Any thoughts?

Thanks! =)


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.