It happens when someone, either intentionally or unintentionally, portrays an issue as complex, thereby giving their claim an air of credibility and discouraging others from critiquing it.
Definition:
The appeal to complexity fallacy emerges when an argument or phenomenon is depicted as unduly complex and convoluted, leading to the conclusion that, since it is ‘too intricate,’ people should avoid engaging with or debating it, as such discussion would be futile. In this instance, rather than offering a clear rationale, complexity serves as a pretext for shying away from addressing the issue or stifling inquiry and blocking critique. For example: ‘Defining justice is so intricate that achieving a consensus-based definition of it seems unattainable.’
Here, it should be noted that the difficulty of a subject does not mean that attempts to clarify it are impossible. The human mind is designed to solve complex problems; it is only mental laziness that turns “complexity” into an excuse for avoiding the understanding of concepts such as justice.
Typical structure of this fallacy:
- Person A puts forward a specific question or argument.
- Person B replies: “The matter is far more complex than that,” or “You cannot understand it.”
- As a result, instead of examining a clear reason, the original question or argument is set aside, and the conversation comes to an end.
Examples from real life:
1. Politics:
a) “Tax reform? You do not understand; this matter is extremely complex and only economists can have a say.”
Here, it should be noted that the genuine complexity of an economic system does not prevent questioning and critiquing its general principles. Every citizen has the right to demand reform of the tax system and to make it fairer, and this right cannot be denied by portraying economics as overly complex.
b) “Drafting a new constitution? This task is extremely complex and only eminent jurists should comment on it.”
Here, it should be noted that although drafting a constitution is indeed a specialised task, the very discussion of its content and fundamental principles is the right of all citizens. To exclude people from participation on the pretext of complexity is a blatant violation of their right to sovereignty.
c) “Combating corruption in government? The matter is so complex that the involvement of ordinary people will only make things worse.”
Here, it should be noted that the complexity of governmental mechanisms and the difficulty of fighting corruption do not justify depriving people of their right to question and demand transparency. On the contrary, public oversight is one of the principal tools for reducing corruption.
2. Economy:
a) “Why is the unemployment rate so high?
-This issue is so complex that ordinary people will never understand it.”
Here, it should be noted that although many factors contribute to unemployment, this fact does not mean that citizens cannot question its root causes. It is the people’s right to demand explanations from officials about economic policies. “Complexity” must not be used as an excuse to confiscate the citizens’ right to question.
b) “Protesting against the loss of purchasing power? Inflation is far too complex a matter for citizens to have an opinion on.”
Here, it should be noted that although inflation is a multidimensional and technical phenomenon, its consequences directly affect people’s lives. Therefore, citizens have the right to question the causes of inflation and to demand its control. The complexity of inflation’s causes cannot be used as a pretext to deprive people of their right to economic well-being.
3. Education:
a) “Why should we not have a precise definition of morality and teach it in schools?
– The definition of morality is so complex that philosophers have failed for centuries to reach any conclusion about it.”
Here, it should be noted that the difficulty of a subject does not mean that attempts to clarify it are futile. Although academic philosophers, under the pretext of complexity, have failed to provide a definitive definition of morality and establish a comprehensive set of moral principles, their failure should not prevent others from attempting to do so. Teaching morality and its secular principles is part of the obligations that the education system is legally bound to fulfil.
b) “Why should we not teach contemporary history in classrooms?
– The subject is very complex and full of conflicting interpretations, so it is better not to mention it at all.”
Here, it should be noted that differences of opinion about history are not a reason to exclude it from education. On the contrary, teaching history offers the younger generation the opportunity to strengthen their critical thinking skills through questioning, source criticism, and examining diverse narratives. Silence and concealment only lead to ignorance and the repetition of past mistakes.
4. Everyday life:
a) “Why should we not separate our rubbish and prevent pollution of the Earth?
– This matter is not nearly as simple as you think. Waste management is so complex that you cannot understand it.”
Here, it should be noted that although large-scale waste management at national and municipal levels is indeed complex, this does not absolve individuals of their personal responsibility. Sorting waste at home is a simple and effective act that demonstrates each citizen’s contribution to protecting the environment. To deprive people of this responsibility on the pretext of complexity is to strip them of their role in preventing the pollution of the Earth.
b) An individual buys a new smartphone and complains to the seller about its complicated and difficult usability. The seller replies:
“The operating system of this phone is an engineering masterpiece, but a complex one. If you do not understand these things, it is not because the design is flawed, but because your understanding is limited.”
Here, it should be noted that the technical complexity of a product is not necessarily a sign of quality. On the contrary, technology should make human life easier, not harder. When a user cannot operate a device with ease, the problem lies in its design and efficiency. In such cases, appealing to complexity is merely an excuse for the manufacturer to evade responsibility and to blame the consumer.
Why is this fallacy dangerous?
- Suppression of dialogue: This fallacy blocks logical discussion and questioning, replacing them with an atmosphere of submission and acceptance.
- False display of power: Using “complexity” as a weapon is not a sign of superiority, but a means of concealing the absence of a logical answer.
- Fear of knowledge: This fallacy instils in people the belief that understanding major issues is reserved only for a select few, which hinders intellectual growth and public knowledge.
How can we recognise and respond to it?
If someone rejects an argument not with a clear reason but merely by using words such as “complex,” “multidimensional,” “profound,” or “technical,” be suspicious of their claim and ask:
– Which part of the subject is truly complex?
– How does this complexity invalidate my argument?
– What evidence exists to show that we should not strive to understand the issue?
– Is this “complexity” not the result of mental laziness or an escape from responsibility?
A suitable response might be: “The complexity of a subject does not mean that questioning it is meaningless or that attempts to understand it are futile. Let us continue to review and refine our methods of inquiry and problem-solving until we reach a result.”
Conclusion:
The appeal to complexity is a standard tool for evading accountability. Recognising it helps us avoid being overawed by the glittering appearance of words and jargon and prevents us from abandoning fundamental questions. In truth, education and critical thinking aim to empower individuals to understand complex issues, not to frighten them. Awareness of this fallacy enables us to resist power-seeking rhetoric and intellectual evasions, while affirming the importance of simplicity, clarity, and honesty in dialogue.