One-way hash argument

{{logicnav}}
A '''one-way hash argument''' is a [[logical fallacy|fallacious]] style of debate where one party makes a simple (or simple-''sounding''), yet typically dishonest assertion that is difficult and time-consuming for their opponent to rebut. The phrase was first coined by Julian Sanchez of the [[Cato Institute]], who had noticed similarities between the debating style of [[Global warming denialism|global warming denialists]] and [[creationist]]s.<ref>Julian Sanchez. [http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/04/06/climate-change-and-argumentative-fallacies/ "Climate Change and Argumentative Fallacies."] April 6, 2009.</ref>

It derives its name from {{wpl|Cryptographic_hash_function|cryptographic hash functions|,}} which is an {{wpl|Algorithm|algorithm}} used to generate {{wpl|Computational_hardness_assumption|computationally unforgeable}} [[Cryptography|cryptographic]] {{wpl|Checksum|checksums}} (called digests, or, hashes). In an extremely ironic example of [[Igon Value Problem|what happens when you let laypeople anywhere near complicated technical terms]], Sanchez used "one-way hash" to refer to something that was not actually a one-way hash,{{efn|He was actually describing a specific kind of ''one-way function'' used for {{wpl|RSA cryptosystem|actual encryption}}, rather than the ''one-way'' or ''cryptographic hash functions'' used in cryptographic signing. While the one-way function is reversible, the cryptographic hash function is not.}} which in turn was the wrong analogue for the type of argument he was trying to describe.{{efn|The particular one-way function referred to (multiplication of large prime numbers) is not the correct analogue to the "one-way hash argument" in that it is possible to compute its inverse quickly ''if'' you have a "key," which is not really true of a "one-way hash argument;" an ''accurate'' analogy would be with other classes of problems for which no such keys exist. Unfortunately, only a few mathematicians and other theorists care about the problem classes in question — forget having to explain "preliminary concepts," there are people with doctorates in this field who do not have a proper grasp on this.}} This error goes right over most laypeople's heads, thus neatly illustrating Sanchez's own point:
{{cquote|The talking point on one side is ''just complex enough'' that it's both intelligible — even somewhat intuitive — to the layman ''and'' sounds as though it might qualify as some kind of insight. …The rebuttal, by contrast, may require explaining a whole series of preliminary concepts before it's really possible to explain why the talking point is wrong. So the setup is "[[Style over substance|snappy]], [[Intuition|intuitively]] [[Common sense|appealing]] argument without obvious problems" vs. "rebuttal I probably don’t have time to read, let alone analyze closely."}}

Sanchez states that the aim of a one-way hash argument is to persuade the general public, which is not particularly well-versed about the topic under discussion:

{{cquote|I can often make a convincing case for absolute [[Bullshit|horseshit]]. A specialist would surely see through it, but in an argument between us, the lay observer wouldn’t necessarily be able to tell which of us really had the better case on the basis of the arguments alone — at least not without putting in the time to become something of a specialist himself.}}

So basically, the goal is toss out [[bullshit]] that sounds halfway plausible to those without the [[education]] to know better.<ref group=note>Incidentally, the [[Republican Party]] is going to great lengths to ruin the public education system. This is probably not a coincidence; they're all [[charlatan]]s who want to ensure that the bulk of the population are [[Credulity|highly-credulous]] [[Fun:Sucker|suckers]].</ref> Creationists absolutely love one-way hash arguments. So too do [[Moon landing hoax|Moon landing denialists]].

Another related concept is the "soundbite". A common complaint within contemporary [[politics]] is that politicians are increasingly having to speak in simple, snappy "soundbites", with less and less of a place in the public sphere for longer, more reasoned arguments.

==See also==
*[[Gish Gallop]] — a tactic that similarly aims to overwhelm one's opponent
*[[On-the-spot fallacy]]
*[[Ultracrepidarianism]]

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{logfal}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Fallacious arguments]]

Categories: Arguments, Fallacious arguments