RationalWiki's 2018 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3234Goal: $5000

Argumentum ad baculum

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of the series on
Logic and rhetoric
Icon logic.svg
Key articles
General logic
Bad logic

A argumentum ad baculum (Latin: "argument to the stick") is a logical fallacy in which the arguer threatens their debate opponent with real or threatened violent or nonviolent coercion.

As the appeal to bribery, it is the offer of a pleasant consequence if you go along with the argument.

The fallacy is an appeal to fear, an argument from consequences, and an informal fallacy.

Alternate names[edit]

  • appeal to force
  • appeal to power
  • appeal to bribery


The argument takes this form:

  • Accepting X leads to action Y against me.
  • I do not want action Y to occur to me.
  • Therefore, X is not true / not false.

Y could be anything from torture to the loss of a potential bribe, as long as it's motivational and tied to acceptance of a proposition.

Legitimate use[edit]

As the argumentum ad baculum is an appeal to consequences, it's not fallacious if the argument is based on avoiding consequences rather than any truth value:

  • If you do X you will suffer punishment Y
  • You don't want to suffer punishment Y
  • Therefore you shouldn't do X


The danger in holding a premise is irrelevant to the truth of that premise. This argument doesn't make any statement as to whether X is right or wrong, or whether punishment Y should follow action X, only that it's probably not something you want to do.


  1. If I don't think the boss is nice, I will be fired.
  2. I don't want to be fired.
  3. Therefore, I will think the boss is nice.

Perhaps the most simple example would be:

  • Believe what I say, or I will hit you.

Spanish Inquisition[edit]

A modified form of the argument was otherwise known as the Inquisitorial Question, and took this form:

  • If person A denies being a heretic, then we will torture A.
  • Therefore, A is a heretic.

It proved very useful for getting almost all the Inquisition's targets to admit they were heretics. It may also have been effective because nobody expected it.

Nothing to do with[edit]

The actual baculumWikipedia's W.svg in animal anatomy. As such, this is not "Argument to the penis bone"[1], especially since humans lack said bone.

See also[edit]

External links[edit]


  1. But you have to admit that would be funny