predominem

Predominem is a term used in some discussions of argumentation to describe a pattern where a speaker relies on the perceived dominance or authority of a person, group, or perspective to support or dismiss a claim, rather than engaging with the claim’s substantive evidence. It is not a formally recognized fallacy in standard catalogs.

Etymology and status: The word is a neologism formed from Latin-sounding roots suggesting domination. It has appeared in informal analyses and debates about rhetoric, but it is not widely adopted or codified in scholarly references on logical fallacies.

Mechanism and examples: Predominem can manifest as appeals to authority or to the prestige of a group, such as saying a claim must be true because the field’s leading figures endorse it, or that a position is false because it is associated with a minority faction. In both cases, the argument relies on status, influence, or popularity rather than evaluating the actual evidence.

Relation to other fallacies: Predominem overlaps with ad hominem and ad populum in that it shifts focus away from the argument’s content to who makes it or how many support it. It is often seen as a way of evading critical scrutiny by invoking perceived power dynamics rather than assessing the merits of the claim.

Critique and usage: Because it lacks a formal, widely agreed-upon definition, predominem is treated by many scholars as a descriptive label for a common argumentative pattern rather than a distinct logical category. Critics warn that relying on dominance or authority can obscure faulty reasoning.

See also: Ad hominem, Ad populum, Appeal to authority, Bandwagon effect.