This is a special post for quick takes by Max H. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
There's a norm / explicit assumption that it's always virtuous to support your claims with evidence and explanation. But sometimes it is actually better to say (what you believe to be) true things without explanation, and let readers do the work of generating evidence and support themselves.
Sometimes the evidence is difficult to summarize, it could be just some statistical evidence that your System 1 has generalized after seeing hundreds of examples, or some kind of "X strongly reminds me of Y" where of course there are both similarities and differences between X and Y and you don't fully understand why the similarities feel crucial and the differences irrelevant but they definitely feel that way for some reason.
And if you know that you can't the case legible, your options are limited to:
Yes, a few examples / reasons to leave off evidence and avoid (over)-explanation (spoilers):
2Mo Putera
Hm yeah #2 is particularly interesting. I'm thinking of Scott's nonfiction writing advice #8 ("anticipate and defuse counterarguments") as a potential counterpoint.