Isn’t that an argument from ignorance? You can’t think of anything that you think would both be effective and not be ridiculed, so you conclude it doesn’t exist?
No, it’s an argument from observing repeated occurrence of those who demonstrably, effectively gauge women’s preferences, and seeing the people doing so ridiculed irrespective of their evidence of success. That doesn’t count as an argument from ignorance.
As one’s relevant knowledge approaches infinity, the weaknesses in an argument from incredulity/ignorance approach zero. So I don’t deny you have much relevant knowledge and I don’t think that this fallacy is as bad as most others, such as begging the question, etc. But I think your argument still fits the form, and I think that this is one fallacy smart people have to be especially careful of, as the smarter they are the more relevant knowledge they have. Also, people who can reason well are not as susceptible to totally vacuous forms of argument, so this is more important by comparison (perhaps second to the fallacy fallacy, or motivated stopping).
So where would things like emphasizing the advantages of having vegetarian and/or healthy food available fit in your categorization? I think women are more likely to be vegetarian and more likely to care about the nutritional value of food, so paying attention to those preferences and (literally) catering to them would attract a “more broad base of women”.
Are you somehow sure that it would be ineffective? Or is it that you are sure someone will ridicule it?
No, it’s an argument from observing repeated occurrence of those who demonstrably, effectively gauge women’s preferences, and seeing the people doing so ridiculed irrespective of their evidence of success. That doesn’t count as an argument from ignorance.
As one’s relevant knowledge approaches infinity, the weaknesses in an argument from incredulity/ignorance approach zero. So I don’t deny you have much relevant knowledge and I don’t think that this fallacy is as bad as most others, such as begging the question, etc. But I think your argument still fits the form, and I think that this is one fallacy smart people have to be especially careful of, as the smarter they are the more relevant knowledge they have. Also, people who can reason well are not as susceptible to totally vacuous forms of argument, so this is more important by comparison (perhaps second to the fallacy fallacy, or motivated stopping).
So where would things like emphasizing the advantages of having vegetarian and/or healthy food available fit in your categorization? I think women are more likely to be vegetarian and more likely to care about the nutritional value of food, so paying attention to those preferences and (literally) catering to them would attract a “more broad base of women”.
Are you somehow sure that it would be ineffective? Or is it that you are sure someone will ridicule it?