8. Mr. Stace says that my writings are "extremely obscure," and this is a matter as to which the author [Russell speaking in the third person about himself] is the worst of all possible judges. I must therefore accept his opinion. [Ding, ding, ding!] As I have a very intense desire to make my meaning plain, I regret this.Russell is obviously being silly here, effecting a most uncharacteristic humility. He is sarcastically accepting the criticism of someone he may well regard as a fool, merely because it would be -- to his critics -- arrogant for Russell to point out the great clarity of his writings, and presumably the large number of people who would agree with that assessment. (Personally, I've always found Russell to be extremely clear in his prose.)— BERTRAND RUSSELL, "Reply to Criticisms," in P. A. Schilpp. ed., The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell (Evanston, IL: The Library of Living Philosophers), p. 707
Anyway, he's pretending to accept a conclusion for the reason that he is too ignorant to judge whether it may in fact be right or wrong. This is probably an Argument Ad Ignorantiam, but I'm not certain of this. It's fairly common, as when people refuse to examine a matter, saying: "Who am I to judge?"