Using data generally makes sense, or identifying specific reasons. If folks have lots of vague ‘but everyone really just doesn’t like it, but won’t say it’, it’s more generally just grousing about something uncomfortable but perhaps inevitable.

Except that this is a completely information-free statement. I can claim that the silent majority of people are fond of mixing human hair and feces into their tuna casseroles, but they're all too embarrassed to admit it. It's a rhetorical tactic that is deliberately designed to resist any request to provide evidence. It's a hallmark tactic of bullshitters.

Which is why the statement from a Toyota executive (a company with long history of developing EV tech) carries more weight.

No, it's the opposite, because Toyota has been loudly resisting EVs in favor of their proprietary hydrogen tech for years. This statement carries less weight precisely because it's coming from Toyota.

I can also say the silent majority of people think people who don’t brush their teeth this morning are gross. “Silent majority” is often used as a BS tactic because it doesn’t say anything about the truth or falsehood of a claim - yet, the underlying claim could still be true. Don’t make the logical mistake of assuming “silent majority” claims are automatically “likely false.”

In which case, perhaps this article could be retitled to the exact same thing but with less use of the “tactic”: Toyota CEO talks to other carmakers, warns many of them are cautious on EVs.

> Don’t make the logical mistake of assuming “silent majority” claims are automatically “likely false.”

Is that a mistake? Would it not be fairly safe to assume that if someone had hard evidence to back up their big claim they would not resort to crediting "a silent majority"? Until they make a falsifiable claim, I'm going to err on the side of "probably bullshit."

You're not doing the world any favors by giving the time of day to bullshitters. In the absence of evidence, apply Occam's razor: is it more likely that Toyota is bravely taking a stand for the poor and downtrodden automakers, or is it more likely they're trying to do the same thing they've done for years and spread FUD about EVs merely as a way to save face and justify their boneheaded investments in hydrogen cars?

No auto executive is going to go on the record saying they’re going all in on electric vehicles because their current product range is polluting, obsolete junk, justifiably destined to be banned.

It's not really that silent though, it's just that for it to be a majority many of them aren't speaking publicly. Power companies are very much sounding the alarm that increased electrical demand generated by the asymmetrical loads of widespread EVs are not reasonably achievable. Car executives are much more reluctant to speak out because there is a lot of near term money and clout in EVs.