Yet another red herring fallacy, the appeal to ridicule shifts the argument by using mockery. It occurs when the speaker tries to disprove the argument by making it sound like a joke. Its Latin name is reductio ad ridiculum, some call it an appeal to mockery as well.
This type of argument is not used when something is to be proven; instead, it’s used when disproving an idea. Either the speaker has no proof because of a lack of knowledge or expertise, or there is a lack of evidence for the contrary.
Example 1:
“Artificial Intelligence starting a war with humanity is certainly a reasonable idea. God created us, and what did we do? We made guns and started shooting in the air of course.”
Example 2:
“Abstract paintings are certainly the peak of art. That is, if the peak of art is just randomly dragging the brush around the canvas. And to top it off, spin around while waving the brush.”
It’s evident how the appeal to ridicule works. The speaker proposes an idea and then proceeds to ridicule it. The speaker also assumes that there is no need for proof if you make the idea look ridiculous.
In Example 1, AI is compared with God. We created robots, and God created us. There’s a lack of evidence for non-rebelling AI, so the speaker uses ridicule to disprove it.
In Example 3, the speaker makes abstract art sound ridiculous in order to diminish its value. However, there is a reason why some aestheticians consider this form of art as superior. That is, the existence of art for itself. The speaker is ignorant of this fact or disregards it.
Some think that ridicule is allowed if a theory is foolish enough for it to be ridiculed. Personally, I’m opposed to this. There were times when we thought that the idea of a round Earth was ridiculous. In conclusion, you don’t have to take everything seriously but use evidence instead of ridicule.