I would call this “false exhaustiveness” or “illusory exhaustiveness”, else the name contains no criticism, and even mildly implies true exhaustiveness via free association (an implication invalidated by free association being usually incomplete and thus not locally valid, but I predict this matters for describing fallacies to folks not used to thinking truly exhaustively.) Also, the exhaustiveness need not be via free association. My comment is a bid for you to edit the post, because I think we should standardize on a slightly clearer name.
Claude suggested a number of existing names, but they’re ones others already mentioned and don’t specifically call out the illusion produced by listing many items.
It seems likely to my intuition that False Exhaustiveness is a subset of Argument from Ignorance.
I would call this “false exhaustiveness” or “illusory exhaustiveness”, else the name contains no criticism, and even mildly implies true exhaustiveness via free association (an implication invalidated by free association being usually incomplete and thus not locally valid, but I predict this matters for describing fallacies to folks not used to thinking truly exhaustively.) Also, the exhaustiveness need not be via free association. My comment is a bid for you to edit the post, because I think we should standardize on a slightly clearer name.
Claude suggested a number of existing names, but they’re ones others already mentioned and don’t specifically call out the illusion produced by listing many items.
It seems likely to my intuition that False Exhaustiveness is a subset of Argument from Ignorance.
edit: added missing paren, second paragraph break