Ssophistry is the attempt to cheat reason even while appealing to reason.
In other words, sophistry is unreasonable argumentation that suggests that if you aren't persuaded by it, you're being unreasonable.
Reasonable argumentation never works by appealing to the principle that if you don't go along with it, you're being unreasonable. Reasonable argumentation persuades by bringing up facts and ideas that are genuinely and reasonably persuasive and enlightening. It moves your beliefs naturally, without your having to decide that you "should" believe the conclusion. There is no guarantee that your conclusion will be right, but your understanding of the matter at hand will at least be better informed and more refined.
An alterative description: sophistry is the calculated use of fallacy. This is not meant as an alternative as in a different meaning, but simply a different way of saying the same thing. Anyone engaging in a real argument (as opposed to simply a fight) will attempt to appeal to reason. Using a fallacy is the cheating part.
A classic example of sophistry is a technique that some attorneys believe Johnny Cochrane used in the O.J. Simpson trial. He made an enormous number of legally untenable motions, fully expecting that Judge Ito would deny them. This created the impression that the judge was being unfair. After all, he granted a much higher percentage of the motions made by Marcia Clark. Surely it would be fair and reasonable to grant the same percentage to both sides. If the judge is granting one side far fewer motions than the other, that surely proves that the judge is biased.
This is sophistry because it makes appeal to a principle of reason, in this case the principle that the judge make decisions in accord with law and without personal bias, while making the actual substance of the motions irrelevant. The judge would have been biased if he had granted the unreasonable motions, because the law called upon him to deny them. Making the sole criterion of fairness mere equality of number of motions granted makes a fraudulent appeal to reason. It threw fog over the matter of the trial, the purpose of which was to decide the fact of O.J.'s guilt or innocence. Whereas a reasonable line of thought makes a topic clearer and easier to think about intelligently, the trick of making lots of untenable motions complicated and confused people's attempts to make sense of a highly charged matter.
The move didn't fool many lawyers, but it fooled a certain percentage of the population. This illustrates a common aspect of sophistry: it takes more time to untangle it than most people have.
This example also illustrates the basic way that nearly all sophistry works: appeal to a rule replaces the substance of the matter. In other words, instead of making a good judgement about the matter at hand, the sophistry encourages you to judge only whether a certain rule has been followed--where the rule is simply no part of the matter at hand.
The fallacy here is using a "rule" (LawOfAverages) where it doesn't apply (validity of motions made during a case is not randomly distributed).
I am not in agreement with that which I do not see, but I do not see that which I do not agree.
the end