(Source)

Seems logical, right?

The idea comes from the English philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970). In 1952, he was asked by an editor of a London magazine to provide a short essay about "the broad question of Deism and atheism." 

Russell happily obliged. He described different arguments for the existence of a god, including one who's not all-powerful but just out there "doing His best." If that's true, Russell noted, there's no way to prove it. And no way to disprove it, either.

He explained:

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense." 

So, "Russell's teapot" is a tidy little metaphor for the idea that people who make grand claims should be responsible for proving them, and people who doubt those grand claims shouldn't be responsible for disproving them.

You could also use "Russell's teapot" to mean a grand, unfalsifiable claim that someone is making, perhaps while assuming it's everyone else's responsibility to try to falsify it.

Part of speech:

Noun, the countable kind: "Their crazy conspiracy theory is sounding a lot like Russell's teapot."

Other forms: 

You could make it plural: "Birds aren't real, the earth isn't round, and the moon landing didn't happen: that's quite a collection of Russell's teapots."

And if you like, you can capitalize the T: "Russell's Teapot."

how to use it:

As with other terms for logical fallacies—like anthropomorphism, the Barnum effect, the confirmation bias, and the false dichotomy—the term "Russell's teapot" is ultra-specific, ultra-academic, and, more than likely, judgmental.

Plus, it has a prickly, atheistic tone to it.

So use it carefully! And you might want to gloss it for your readers if you think they might not know it; that is, quickly define it for them as you use it, because it's pretty rare.

You might bring up Russell's teapot when someone seems to be placing the onus of disproof on someone else. You might refer to some idea or claim as Russell's teapot (or as a Russell's teapot). Or you might get playful with your wording and invoke Russell's teapot or plead Russell's teapot, or if you're feeling spicy, ask someone for the current Cartesian galactic coordinates of their Russell's teapot.

examples:

"Is belief in God really like belief in Russell’s teapot? Kenneth L. Pearce argues that God is no teapot. God is a real answer to the deepest question of all: why is there something rather than nothing?"   
  — Taylor & Francis (publisher), promoting the book Is There a God?: A Debate by Graham Oppy and Kenneth L. Pearce, 2021

"Claiming there is no proof that any vaccine will not cause something far in the future is akin to asking me to prove to you that there are not fairies at the bottom of my garden... You cannot prove a negative – the Russell’s Teapot analogy explains this well." 
   — Helen Petousis-Harris, University of Auckland, 30 April 2021

has this page helped you understand "Russell's teapot"?

Awesome, I'm glad it helped!

Thanks for letting me know!
If you have any questions about this term, please message me at Liesl@HiloTutor.com.

study it:

Explain the meaning of "Russell's teapot" without saying "you can't falsify the unfalsifiable" or "a dragon in my garage."

try it out:

Does it sound to you like Russell's teapot is a cranky, dismissive idea, one that shuts down possibilities and conversations rather than opening or encouraging them? 

Maybe you'd prefer to side with William Irwin, who wrote in his essay "God Is a Question, Not an Answer" that "in a spirit of tolerance and intellectual humility, we should see ourselves as partners in a continuing conversation, addressing an enduring question."

So, if you had to side with Russell or Irwin, who would it be, and why? Or if you agree with both or neither, also, why?

If you like, use this space to write. (To save your work, copy and paste it into an email or a document.)

before you review, play:

Try to spend 20 seconds or more on the game below. Don’t skip straight to the review—first, let your working memory empty out.

Our game this month is "Literally That."

I’ll give you a gif and several synonyms that describe it, and you figure out which of these synonyms is most literally illustrated in the gif. You can check out some examples here.

Try this one today:

(Source)

A. debacle
B. discombobulation
C. pratfall

To see the answer, scroll all the way down. 

review this word:

1. To challenge the idea of Russell's teapot, you could point out that

A. what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
B. absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
C. you can't cut a foot off the top of a blanket and sew it to the bottom to have a longer blanket.

2. In an XKCD comic, a presenter gestures to a schematic and says, "I'm crowdfunding a project to _____ to settle the Russell thing once and for all."

A. dig a teapot-shaped hole
B. launch a teapot into orbit around the sun
C. manufacture a mushroom-based edible teapot

Answers to the review questions: 1. B 2. B From the game: I was thinking of "pratfall," literally a fall onto one's butt. But this guy really played it off well. Whee!

a final word:

I hope you're enjoying Make Your Point. It's made with love. I'm Liesl Johnson, a reading and writing tutor on a mission to explore, illuminate, and celebrate words. From my blog: On vocabulary...       36 ways to study words.       Why we forget words, & how to remember them.       How to use sophisticated words without being awkward. On writing...       How to improve any sentence.       How to motivate our kids to write.       How to stop procrastinating and start writing.       How to bulk up your writing when you have to meet a word count. From my heart: a profound thanks to the generous patrons, donors, and sponsors that make it possible for me to write these emails. If you'd like to be a patron or a donor, please click here. If you'd like to be a sponsor and include your ad in an issue, please contact me at Liesl@HiloTutor.com. A disclaimer: When I write definitions, I use plain language and stick to the words' common, useful applications. If you're interested in authoritative and multiple definitions of words, I encourage you to check a dictionary. Also, because I'm American, I stick to American English when I share words' meanings, usage, and pronunciations; these elements sometimes vary across world Englishes.