This "Bredt Rule" appears to have been essentially a "proof by example". For non-mathematicians out there: Proof by example looks sort of like this: "Every example of 'X' I can find has 'Y' characteristic, therefore all 'X' has 'Y' characteristic". It's not a proof at all; it's sort of an example of "incredulity" as a logical fallacy.
The Argument from Ignorance, also known as Appeal to Ignorance, is a logical fallacy where evidence does not support the theory. It occurs when someone asserts that a proposition is true or false solely because it has not been proven false or true, respectively...............