Talk:Argument from ignorance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

"However, the mistake is to assert that because a phenomenon is unexplained, that it is unexplainable."

This is double thatting. Is this supposed to mean "However, the mistake is to assert, because a phenomenon is unexplained, that it is unexplainable." or "However, the mistake is to assert that because a phenomenon is unexplained, it is unexplainable."?

I'm not really happy with this sentence, but I can't absolutely tell why (lack of imagination ? ;-):

This logical fallacy should be distinguised from the logically valid method of reductio ad absurdum. In reductio ad absurdum it is necessary to show that A implies not A, not merely that A implies something which the speaker considers absurd.

The point is, to prove "not A" by reduction ad absurdum, you have to prove that "not A" implies "B" where B is a proposition you can prove to be false per se, or prove to be contradictory with A. The author of the sentence wants to point out the danger of simply believing B to be false by lack of imagination. But, expressed this way, the problem applies to any kind of reasoning, not just reductio ad absurdum. It's lack of imagination aplied to sub-argument B. I don't really see what is special with reductio ad absurdum here. So, in my opinion, the sentence boils down to being redundant.

Perhaps one could say something like:

One should be particularly wary of lack of imagination when applying reductio ad absurdum.

But even then, I don't see why a special importance is granted to reductio ad absurdum specifically.

I have the same qualms with a correlated update from the same author to the reductio ad absurdum entry. See there my modifications and my [remark in brackets] (in the text, as there is/was no talk page).

Does anyone feel like me on this ?

--FvdP

I liked the reductio ad absurdum paragraph, though I think that I interpreted rather differently than FvdP did above. Some expressions of an argument by lack of imagination are framed as "I can't imagine that therefore it is ridiculous and must be untrue." To someone who is unfamiliar with the classes of logical argument (like a reader of these pages), that statement could be confused with "The premise leads to a logically impossible (ridiculous) conclusion, therefore it must be false." A leads to not A. The paragraph merely claried the difference between the valid reductio ad absurdum and the invalid argument by lack of imagination. Rossami 01:56, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I removed this paragraph:

Evolutionary biologist Leslie Orgel, believing that people constantly underestimate the explanatory power of evolution, has coined a phrase now known as Orgel's rule: "Evolution is cleverer than you are."

because I felt the article was getting a bit overly focussed on arguments against arguments against evolution, for which Wikipedia already has pages dedicated to. And, I'll concede, I find "Evolution is cleverer than you are" to sound disturbingly like "The Lord works in mysterious ways."


I have real trouble with this argument in the Creation/Evolution context. This is because, in simple terms, Evolutionists say "Evolution can explain everything". If someone comes and says "I can see no way that Evolution can explain this." then the Evolutionist says "Ah, but it might - you just can't imagine it". To me that seems like a cop-out on the Evolutionists part. The onus must be on the proponents of a theory to show that it actually explains what they claim is explains, especially if they want their theory to move from 'conjecture' to 'fact' status. DJ Clayworth 19:41, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Actually, what the creationists normally do is ignore the proposed models and theories of evolutionary biology. Instead they say "Look at this marvelous wonder we call the human eye -- something like this could never have come into existence by chance." They then conclude that the biblical account of creation as related in the Bible must be true. To this the evolutionary biologists respond: 1) Evolution is not the same as randomness. The conditions of evolution are determined by the environment to which an organism must adopt. 2) The reason you do believe that something like the human eye cannot have evolved naturally is that you lack the imagination to see the processes by which it can. But several such processes have been proposed, see ... etc. 3) Even if evolutionary biology was insufficient to explain incident X or Y, this would not necessitate a creator, and certainly not creation as described in the Bible. The explanatory power of evolutionary thought has been demonstrated time and time again, and to propose that organism X or Y now invalidates evolutionary thought as a whole and necessitates creationist thought requires more evidence than just the absence of an explanation -- without such evidence it is much more likely that we presently lack the imagination and information to come up with the full explanations required.—Eloquence 19:52, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)
This is all a very fascinating debate, but I'm afraid I can't see what it's got to do with improving the encyclopedia article that this Talk page is attached to. Perhaps this would be better taken elsewhere? Martin 20:00, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to add back the classification of Lack of imagination as a logical fallacy. I do not think this is a POV statement. If, during a logical argument, you attempt to defend your position with a statement that is consistent with lack of imagination, you have made an invalid argument by definition.
The second part of the Copi quote itself falls prey to the lack of imagination fallacy. For any scenario where his "qualified observers" "should have found ...", I can imagine some reason (however improbable) why they may not yet have made the discovery. Copi's qualification may be part of a valid reasonable argument, but not part of a valid logical argument.
However, this could be my own lack of imagination. If anyone can respond with a single counter-example where a lack of imagination argument would be logically valid, then I must concede to the 'sometimes' wording. Rossami 01:29, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If you can find a named advocate, preferably a philosophy expert, who agrees with you, then by all means add that view to the article, appropriately attributed. Martin 08:51, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I removed the following comments because Wikipedia is not in the practice of providing unimportant information, and particularly not in the practice of offending people's sensabilities and beliefs.

Excized: Ayn Rand

An example of this argument is Ayn Rand's defense of patent and copyright law. She argued that such laws were "obviously necessary" for authors and inventors to earn a living, so they should be supported. In other words, she could not imagine any ways for artists and inventors to earn a living without them, therefore such methods cannot exist. Rand's conclusion is falsified when, for example, a wealthy patron commissions a work for public display (such as a manufacturer creating an advertisement), or an author chooses to control the work through licensing agreements based on trade secret law rather than through a copyright. Rand's hypothesis also fails in light of the sociological work of Marcel Mauss on gift economies based on mutually voluntary transaction. (This is an idea that is particularly "unimaginable" to many people who believe that it contradicts human nature.)

Science

The argument from lack of imagination is often used to attempt to invalidate a scientific theory by pointing out a phenomenon which the theory does not readily explain. This is rather simple to do because there are a lot of phenomena that are currently unexplained. However, the mistake is to assert that because a phenomenon is unexplained, it is unexplainable.

Richard Dawkins has called the fallacy "the argument from personal incredulity". He uses it specifically in the context of the argument from irreducible complexity, in debates between creationism and evolution. Evolutionary biologist Leslie Orgel, coined Orgel's rule: "Evolution is cleverer than you are."

In a telling demonstration of the weakness of such argument Dawkins cites the example of Bishop Hugh Montefiore's implicit assumption that since polar bears are camouflaged even though they have no natural predators, their camouflage serves no evolutionary purpose. In reality, the polar bear benefits by its camouflage concealing it from its potential prey when it is hunting, of course.

An argument from lack of imagination is arguably part of the teleological argument for the existence of God.

--- To have made these last statements, the author is overlooking the fact that evolution is not proven, and so to argue in favor of evolution, without proof, is on equal ground with creationism. Evolutionists are forever commiting the assumptive argument fallacy in speaking as if evolution were fact and not theory.

When speaking about logic, it is vitally important not to fall pray to fallacy. Also, when writing about controversial subjects on Wikipedia, it is important to speak from a neutral standpoint and not to offend the majority of readers.

-- Corey 01:44, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Cyan, you are wrong, Wikipedia has neither a policy to be non-offensive, nor do you supply convincing arguments why the Ayn Rand example is "unimportant". Your opinion about evolution not being proven as fact, while incorrect, is noted -- you may want to add this opinion in attributed form to the article instead of just removing arguments you do not like.—Eloquence 01:48, Sep 8, 2003 (UTC)

My name is Corey, not Cyan. Yes, on the wikipedia page it clearly states:

First, because there are a huge variety of participants of all ideologies, and from around the world, Wikipedia is committed to making its articles as unbiased as possible. The aim is not to write articles from a single objective point of view -- this is a common misunderstanding of the policy -- but rather, to fairly present all views on an issue, attributed to their adherents.

Also, the only way that evolution could be proved is by showing gradual progressions in the so-called evolutionary chain. Showing a bunch of skeletons with two ears, two eyes, two nostrils, teeth and a brain with two hands on the extremities of two arms is not proof.

Read the book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" by Michael J. Behe, an evolutiionist.

-- Corey 01:54, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm not interested in a debate with you about "intelligent design", Corey. Our NPOV policy is about phrasing statements neutrally, not about removing "offensive" statements. Please read it before engaging in edit wars, or you will end up finding yourself banned from Wikipedia quite quickly.—Eloquence 02:05, Sep 8, 2003 (UTC)

I believe that's exactly what I said.

And I was avoiding the argument by giving you a book to read for yourself.

It is not my responsibility to write the opposing views, for one, and to introduce a complex subject and all it's viewpoints would be counter-productive to this article. Such discussions of viewpoints on evolution and creation belong on one and the other such articles, not on an article about a completely unrelated topic.

It is the responsibility of the one typeing the original statement to include the opposing views in the first place. -- Corey 02:14, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Actually, it's better if the opposite viewpoint is argued by a person knowing and understanding it. The person originally writing that passage may also think there is no plausible opposite viewpoint (that is, none which could then not be rebutted with counter arguments to a certain point until it is completely refuted). And I do not agree that this issue is too complex for the article -- in fact it would be an excellent test case to see if this "lack of imagination" argument really holds up to closer scrutiny. So if you want to go for that, I'll gladly unprotect the page. But please do not remove information just because you disagree with it.—Eloquence 02:21, Sep 8, 2003 (UTC)

It was not my original intention to add to such an argument in an article on a logic definition. I prefer to use my time in a more practical manner. However, since I'm left with no option, and no one else on this site who would be interested in doing so, it leaves me with no recourse but to take up the challenge. This is more than a minor inconvenience which those genuinely interested in an encyclopedic article on "Lack of Imagination" are likely to be uninterested in reading such jibberish. -- Corey 02:36, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, if you can only come up with jibberish, then we will just have to rephrase it. Page unprotected.—Eloquence

That was a very funny play on my statement. Thank you for the compromise. -- Corey 04:06, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Isn't the Ayn Rand argument a rather minor one and also just based upon some evidence that has "it is true because I found someone who agrees with me" logic. Argumentation about the necessity of intellectual property laws could go on for pages, the brief summary really does not do that topic justice and it is rather tangental to the point of this topic, a simpler and more direct example would be better, someone who wants to argue about Ayn Rand's opinions would be better advised to do it either on Ayn Rand's page or on the intellectual property page, not on a page about a logic topic; it gives it the wrong spin and I do not think it is a NPOV issue, it is just a writing issue. That is my opinion, for what it's worth. Alex756 04:23, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I have a different objection to inclusion of the Ayn Rand example. Can anyone provide a reference to her ever saying that it was "obviously necessary"? I've read several of her works, and although that doesn't make me an expert, I don't recall that she ever made this bald assertion. I fear that we are attributing to her something that she never said, and doing so in a way to cast aspersion upon her. -BuddhaInside
I think the IP example is a good example for "lack of imagination", because for decades, people have been arguing like this and many still do. I don't care if we attribute it to Ayn Rand or just treat it as a general example. Regardless, many people just say that "we obviously need copyright" and do not take into account the alternatives. Of course, some do take into account the alternatives and write detailed treatises on why they think that they will not work. To them, the "lack of imagination" fallacy does not apply.—Eloquence 04:39, Sep 8, 2003 (UTC)
Using the logical argument as a demonstration with the attribution to any particular person makes sense for several reasons: (1) you don't have to worry about misquoting or (2) finding the right quote. It also (3) keeps the focus on the topic at hand. Those seem like three good reasons to make all arguments in logic articles generic, sort of like what we do in legal teaching, the example is using some simple name or the name of the property is always called Black Acre, keep out all extraneous details, focus on the main point, this always makes any kind of reasoned writing a bit easier to read. I'd say just making the major point about IP not being necessary because there are alternatives gets to the heart of that argument; this is not the place to argue about IP laws. Alex756 05:05, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Well, I don't like arguments that are too generic and boring. I like examples that tie into the reality that people are familiar with. But of course this should be limited to a reasonable extent -- we don't want this to become an IP debate. I think Rand should be cited if Damien can provide a source, but otherwise the example should be anonymized.—Eloquence 05:38, Sep 8, 2003 (UTC)
I welcome using this or any other example where someone claims an observation is "obvious" as a means of demonstrating a fallacy. Why, to some, it is "obvious" that wikipedia cannot tolerate a List of famous heterosexuals. I'd just like to verify that this really is something that Ayn Rand wrote about before using her persona as an example in this manner. -BuddhaInside
Well, you have not responded to my arguments on your talk page regarding the list. As for Rand, you may want to ask User:Damian Yerrick, who is the one who added that section.—Eloquence 04:51, Sep 8, 2003 (UTC)
I do not read my talk page, and have requested deletion of any content there. -BuddhaInside

Contents

[edit] Strawmen?

In other words, she could not imagine any ways for artists and inventors to earn a living without them, therefore such methods cannot exist.

I doubt that Rand made such a simplistic argument: seems like a strawman - exaggerating her position, and rebutting the exaggeration. I'd be happy for the entire section to be removed.

Others suggest anonymising: I oppose that. For it to serve as an example, we need solid evidence that at least one advocate of IP law does so (or did so) on the basis that there is no imaginable alternative. Martin 10:25, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The same applies to "Montefiore's implicit assumption". Did Montefiore actually make that assumption, or is Dawkins putting words into the good bishop's mouth? Martin 10:43, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I have never seen Ayn Rand cited as an authority for getting ride of IP laws. I do not think that anonymising is a problem. THIS IS NOT AN ARTICLE ABOUT IP ARGUEMENTATION. It is a standard anti-IP argument, not everything needs to be cited in an encyclopedia. It really detracts from the neutrality of this article to cite someone who has only a tangental role to play in the ongoing debate about IP law (it is not her argument it is as old as the Queen Anne Statute, she is just citing the same arguments that many people have brought up who object to IP laws; maybe saying it is her argument is some kind of idea plagarism (if you believe that people can own ideas, I don't and I don't even known any pro-IP advocate that does)) The idea belongs to no one. Perhaps giving it to Ayn Rand is dishonest and immoral (that is what some people post on the mailing list when we discuss IP laws and how they apply to Wikipedia).
So, so far in arguments against citing Rand:
  • We don't know if she really held the position attributed to her
  • She's not an authority on intellectual property anyway
I think those are solid arguments against mentioning her. Martin 14:51, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Why don't you use an similar example from criminal law? I don't think most people can really connect with IP laws; also they are hard to explain and understand. It really does not touch most people except writers and software developers (hey gee, that is probably half the people who volunteer here). Criminal laws, however, that touches practically everyone's life (and it is very scary stuff to anyone to think about going do jail). Put an argument in about restorative justice wouldn't that work fine? Alex756 10:48, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I like the mention of the teleological argument and creationism, because these are canonical examples of the argument ad ignorantium - it's impossible to have a discussion on the subject without that issue being raised.
Are intellectual property arguments similarly prone to lack of imagination arguments and accusations? I'm not convinced.... Martin 14:51, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

--- I had protected this yesterday, by request, to prevent deletion. Since it's now unprotected, I hope my changes this morning aren't a violation of Wikipedia etiquette. (If they are, please at least keep the grammar fixes.)Vicki Rosenzweig 15:07, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)


Arguments 'from lack of imagination' are used in law all the time. If there is no plausible way that a defendant could have comitted a crime, then that is considered evidence (though not necessarily proof) that they did not do it. To argue that they did do it you would have to bring up substantial additional evidence.

Likewise in science the burden of proof is on a theory to be able to explain all relevant phenomena. If a theory can explain some phenomena, but others have no plausible explanation, that is an indication that more work should be done on the theory before it is considered true. DJ Clayworth 15:39, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Your first point: this would be "lack of imagination" if the defendant were trying to prove that he was innocent. In most modern legal systems, he is merely trying to prevent the prosecution from proving "beyond reasonable doubt" that he is guilty. As you say, to assume that because a defendant is found not guilty that he therefore did not commit the crime is a perfect example of argumentum ad ignorantium. I'll add it to the article. -- Onebyone 19:38, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Alright. I see this isn't going to be easy. I'm going to rewrite this so as to include all the points being made, but do it in such a way that it is easily understood and neutral.

By the way, the teleological argument page, while very well done, and 99% neutral, is way out of date. Teleological argumentation doesn't just cover one argument. It covers any argument that argues for the existence of God based upon design in nature. To just put a link to that page is meaningless. A specific example of a teleological argument that falls prey to lack of immagination is required. I will do this.

P.S. Why is this article titled "Lack of Imagination"? The three foremost exponants of Logic, namely Hurley, Copi, and McCall, not to mention, the majority of the logic community use the modern term "Argument from Ignorance" or its more ancient Latin term "Argumentum ad ignorantium". I don't know where the "Lack of Imagination" use came from, but it certainly isn't the most common usage, nor is it the name by which professors and logicians call it. -- Corey 15:50, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)


I'm not sure either. All the Googles I've found for it are referencing the Wikipedia article, apart from a few discussion board postings. 207.236.234.180 16:07, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

To add all these subjects within an encyclopedic article is meaningless. If you include these subject headings, you have to include all reasoning subjects, from psychology to which pair of shoes should be universally accepted.

When I rewrite the article it will include a modification of the evolution example, but I think it totally useless to cite umpteen million examples of the fallacy. It is enough to cite one sample each of the two kinds of arguments from ignorance. -- Corey 19:09, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

Ahhhh, that's better. Rewrite still forthcoming. -- Corey 08:48, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Sorry if I've jumped the gun, but the rewrite doesn't seem to be all that forthcoming, so I've had a go myself.

I've removed the following text entirely, becuase it doesn't seem to help the article much:

Evolutionary biologist Leslie Orgel coined Orgel's rule: "Evolution is cleverer than you are".

Religion

The argument from lack of imagination is arguably a flaw in the "argument from design" for the existence of God. See teleological argument for details.

Between the cuts which Corey has already made and those I've made today, can the neutrality dispute for this article now be resolved?

Onebyone 19:53, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This looks good. I'd say remove the dispute - if anyone disagrees they can put it back easily enough. Martin 22:38, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting to that rewrite. Things went haywire in the personal arena for me shortly after that. I'm still not going to be able to contribute much for a while. Thanks for the adjustments.—Corey 18:52, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)


To be pedantic: re: the polar bear example (but I wouldn't want to ruin it) : the Polar Bear apparently has transparent fur over a dark skin (now why would THAT be useful? ;-) ), it only appears white because its fur also refracts some of the light. 80.126.238.189 13:19, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Excised Section

anyone ever try ketamine?

I removed this paragraph:

Also, in the extremely unlikely event that work would rarely be commissioned for display when it was discovered that such work, no longer covered by intellectual property laws, could be plagiarized with impunity, there would still be many other alternatives through which artists and inventors could make a living:
* Most artists and inventors are fully qualified to work as fast food service professionals, maintenance workers, or gravediggers.
* Female artists and inventors, simply by virtue of their sex, would usually be able to enter into the world's oldest profession.
* So long as drug prohibition exists, artists and inventors of either sex could get a job swallowing condoms filled with illegal drugs to get them past customs inspectors.
* Finally, it is even conceivable that without intellectual property laws, a form of "intellectual property black market" would evolve whereby mob bosses would demand percentages for the use of a given plagiarized idea. In such a case, an artist or inventor might be able to get a job enforcing the collection of such percentages.

The reason is because the entire paragraph was itself a logical fallacy. Specifically (if I am correct) it employed Amphibology to pervert the intended meaning of the initial premise, 'I cannot imagine any ways for artists and inventors to earn a living without intellectual property laws.' The issue is that all the examples given (which were obviously chosen to be as unappealing as possible) would mean that the artists and inventors were no longer artists and inventors... they would instead be flunkies, whores, drug runners, or hit men.

You cannot prove how an artist or inventor can make a living doing X, if doing X is not part of being an artist or inventor. The original line did not explicitly state that the artists and inventors would of course be employed in their chosen profession, and the paragraph I removed jumped on that oversight, and extended it in what appears to be a calculated attack on the point originally being made.

Now, I should also point out that the original example is, in itself, an advertisement for a different point of view. Perhaps it would be best if a more socially neutral example were put here instead.

[edit] Edit IP Example

I further edited the intellectual property example, removing pro-IP biased edits. While I have concerns about using such a controversial example, I do not believe that having 'balancing' rhetoric mixed in aids in the clarity of the example. The purpose is merely to explain an example of argument from ignorance as applied to law. An example argument is given, and the lack of imagination for that argument is shown. Whether or not you agree with the validity intellectual property, the failure of that specific argument is the only issue, and that failure is described, thus helping people to understand Argument from ignorance as used in law.

I would be in support of replacing the example entirely with one that is less controversial... how about abortion? :-)

[edit] Relation to negative proof

It would be beneficial to describe the difference between the closely related concepts of "Argument from ignorance" and "negative proof". I would classify "I've never heard of X, so X doesn't exist" as a negative proof, while "I've never heard of X, and reason Y shows that X couldn't exist" is an argument from ignorance if "Y" doesn't take all arguments into account. I'm not sure if this is a totally accurate description, or if it is sufficient to say that a negative proof is a subset of arguments from ignorance, if that is indeed the case.

[edit] Invitation

Work is currently in progress on a page entitled Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared. Also currently being worked upon is Wikipedia: NPOV (Comparison of views in science) giving guidelines for this type of page. It is meant to be a set of guidelines for NPOV in this setting. People knowledgable in many areas of science and the philosophy of science are greatly needed here. And all are needed to ensure the guidelines correctly represent NPOV in this setting. :) Barnaby dawson 21:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Simple solution to IP problem

Since the section is talking about laws and how the fallacy applies to legal decisions, instead of putting in the IP issue, put in an actual legal decision which many people can more easily grasp. Edited to do so, inserted "Michael Jackson" example. Many people could not imagine how he could have slept with young boys and not had sex with them, therefore assuming he must be guilty. However, the trial showed otherwise, because to argue "I can't imagine him NOT having done it" is, by definition, argument from lack of imagination. This example is shorter, more straightforward, and does not confuse the issue with the secondary arguments of Intellectual Property laws. user:xaa

[edit] Rebuttal from article

Removed this from the article text (an article should not contradict itself, and it was in the wrong place anyway, and would disrupt the presentation by following an irrelevent tangent):

Rebuttal;

It would be healthy (and only right), to note that since man can travel to the Arctic, man has weapons stronger and more lethal than a Polar Bears claws or jaws, that may be used to hunt, maim, or even kill a Polar Bear from great distances that man is indeed on occasion a predator of Polar Bears...Hence the Polar Bear needs the camouflage of white fur. This dents that example a wee bit. Except for the fact that man has not hunted polar bears long enough or in large enough numbers to warrant an evolutionary change. Polars bears are rarely hunted, and man is not a 'natural' predator or the polar bear.

[edit] Teleological Argument

I reverted out & deleted a poorly-written & reasoned example from Ohanian on the 14th of January. At first I considered merely correcting the grammar and rewriting the style, but I think the whole example is bad. That said, some form of reference might be reasonable. Any thoughts?

Before I say mine, should Argument from Ignorance & Argument from Lack of Imagination really be tied together as the same thing in the introduction? Argument from Ignorance, to me at least, assumes that all sides agree that X is unknown, and the fallacy is claiming that therefore explanation Y 'must' be false. Argument from Lack of Imagination would be more appropriately filed under the "From Personal Conviction" sides, as some explanation Y is proferred to X, which is rejected for irrelevant reasons.

Anyway, naive versions of the Teleological Argument for specific phonemena do nicely qualify for Argument from Lack of Imagination / Personal Conviction. However, for this to qualify, the conclusion must be exclusive. Saying "We don't know why lightning bolts happen, therefore it's Zeus" should only be an example of this fallacy if the person also rules out any future explanation and says that because this must be eternally unknown and unexplainable (lack of imagination), Zeus is the only possible explanation. Merely saying "God is in the gaps" does not necessarily deny that scientific explanations can also be right (Zeus changes the weather patterns?), and also allows a nice retreat into other gaps. If somebody can find a cite of an actual medieval or Renaissance philosopher saying that something unexplainable at the time must therefore be God and only God, that might work. Otherwise, we can just leave this out.

[edit] Significant changes to the article in March, 2006

FT2, thanks for the repeated help with edits recently, and for the very sensible re-sectioning.

I wanted to make a quick point about the Argument from personal incredulity: The most recent edit (the bulleted examples of argument from incredulity) is, I think, a further step in the right direction. However, as currently written it confuses the argument itself with the explanation of the argument for the reader-- that is, currently the bulleted examples do not accurately represent forms of the argument per se, but rather are part argument, part explanation of the argument. These need to be separated out. The bullets, if they are to be included, should highlight a typical form of the falacious argument itself, and the explanation needs to be separate from the bulleted example.

Another approach could be used too, which is already used in the Examples section. There, examples of the argument are given, with explanations of the fallacy in parenthesis.

Incidentally, FT2, superb work on the TA article! Kudos to you... Kenosis 16:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

FT2, you also raised an interesting issue about the difference between not being aware of evidence and not having evidence. It's a potential quagmire that I think should be included only very carefully, and I think definitely not in any example of the argument itself-- e.g., do we mean unaware (ignorant) of the entire body of scientific evidence to date?, unaware of the current consensus and summaries on an issue of inquiry?, unaware of someone's most recent proposed explanation just published?, is the most recent proposed explanation verifiable and useful to other scientists?, etc, etc....Kenosis 16:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


What a tricky question!! I am going to have a stab at it. Forgive me if this is crass and poor quality by competent standards.

(And thanks for the compliment. Can you have a stab at the bullets for a bit? I want to think and see how you see it, your last edits were good ones too)

I think its more along the lines of, arguing on the basis that ignorance is factual, as opposed to ignorance being lack of knowledge. So for example, this is my understanding of a slippery divide where one can read it strictly or not:

  • If I argue that Fermat's Last Theorem can't (currently) be proven, because I'm unaware of latest research, and I state that because we haven't yet proven the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture or any equivalent result FLT is presently unprovable, that's ignorance. But my claim clearly states it is a belief, and conditional upon a reason which I leave open to others to judge.
  • If I state that it can't be proven, or no alternatives exist, I am stating this as a statement that has truth-value, at that point I've slipped into argument from ignorance. I am asserting that because a specific person at a specific time in a specific life cannot prove it (or has an opinion that it cannot be true), therefore it cannot be proven at all, and/or is untrue for all people, all times, all lives.

So I think its 3 things that makes it a fallacy: the generalization (personal opinion --> universal truth), the absoluteness rather than conditionality (its true if --> its true), and the failure to neutrally appraise evidence held. The point where it slips from "I think that [X], because [to the best of my knowledge (Y)]" to "[X] is a fact because [obvious to me (Y')]"

In this sense, argument from ignorance is like the term "theory", I suppose..... every argument unless very carefully specified, is capable of being found "ignorant" tomorrow. So "[Blah], therefore [fact:] the earth goes round the sun", if [Blah] later turns out an assumption, is technically also an argument from ignorance, even though the present evidence is vast and we have no credible reason to disbelieve it. Since we are discussing an argument in logic, rather than an argument in everyday commonsense and rhetoric, a strict reading is probably not inappropriate, where we say "only what is logical is correct to assert".

I don't know if this is utterly right, or valid, or even "original research", but maybe in it there is something that will help us identify in academic and logic texts, what exactly we need to bring into the article to clarify it better.

Of course even if it is, the examples may not show this as well as they could.... FT2 (Talk) 22:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi FT2. Please see [1], which describes the point I was trying to make before that the Argument has both a positive and a negative construction. The adage "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" only illustrates the negative construction...Kenosis 22:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Kenosis -- really reallynice edits. I think you've captured it much better than it was, for the first time this article really starts to feel encyclopedic as well as "just capturing information". Very neat work this time round. FT2 (Talk) 22:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks FT2. I hope this gets the article much closer to stable, and thanks for your help. I felt it was really important because of the relationship to the intelligent design controversy, where so many people get confused about what the arguments are. I also appreciate our conversation here...Kenosis 05:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I still think it's nice to actually have that sense of working with someone here, in that way. Many thanks, and yes, close to stable now, sort of :) Nice work :) FT2 (Talk) 18:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You can't prove your views, so don't argue with me!"

  1. This has to do with personal desiscion, not nessesarily logic, due to the "don't argue with me". That is a choice on the person making the argument, absurd as it may sound.
  2. Not being able to prove your views doesn't mean your wrong, but doesn't mean you're right.
  3. This example may have alternate views, but is taken out of context. If one is making a claim and and the other states this, it is a rational statement.
  4. If one is making a claim and they state this, its irrational, because the burden of "proof" is up to them.

This isn't an example of argument from ignorance. Somerset219 00:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone tried to begin an argument with me based on their belief that the tooth fairy really did exist, then I could imagine myself saying something similar, though it would be more along the lines of "This will lead nowhere productive, so dont waste my time".

it's a really bad example.--87.65.181.203 20:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fallacies fallaciously promoted as valid

Argumentum ad ignorantiam is "the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true." This is pretty clear and well established. Most of this article has nothing to do with that, but is instead thinly veiled attempts to promote an agenda, for example much of the examples section. Xj 08:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "No one saw X, so how can we know X actually happened?"

this is not an argument from ignorance. it's not arguing anything, it's a legitimate question. "No one saw X happen, so x cannot/has not happened" would be an argument from ignorance.--87.65.144.52 15:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, I'm changing it then.--87.65.181.203 16:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] arguing atheism

I am adding a point here, though its clear this is contentious from the talk page it seems to me that by adding a theistic argument from ignorance you have to add an atheistic argument from ignorance it is impossible for God\supernatural to exist, because we have no physical evidence for it this seems like a clear argument from ignorance. It is not stating what is more likely, whether we evolved or were created or by whom or anything else, it only states that the solid belief, without any room for doubt that a supernatural being of any type could not under any circumstances exist, as a fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Colin 8 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

I forgot to add my signature to that last edit "arguing atheism" sorry, its --Colin 8 21:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this:
It is impossible under any circumstances for God/supernatural being to exist because their is no evidence to prove it. An argument made by atheist's to prove that a supernatural deity could not exist
because atheists don't make this claim. The currently popular atheist tract, Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion, titles the relevant chapter "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God", not "Why There Is No God". Atheists have made the point in innumerable ways, via the Celestial Teapot, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn and others, that there are plenty of things we can't disprove, and that while we may technically have to remain agnostics, in practice "we are all teapot-atheists", as Dawkins puts it. grendel|khan 17:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest removing example that discusses exist/non-exist of God unless it is referenced.

This argument example was added by IP back in mid-November. It's been swapped around recently. It is stated without evidence (either way). I suggest it is boldy removed as it will simply attract edit-"lint" unless who ever wants it in there can clearly show examples of the use and the cite/ref must be notable.
version a) - from one POV,

  • "God exists, because science is incapable at this time to prove that he does not exist." A common argument used by Theists to disprove the claims of non theists that a supernatural diety does not actually exist.

version b) - from the flip POV,

  • "God does not exist, because science is incapable at this time of proving that he does exist." A common argument used by nontheists to disprove the claims of theists that a supernatural deity does exist.

I vote it is culled as we could stick any fantasy "x" figure in there e.g. fairies, FSM, teapots, any of the god or gods invented since the dawn of time such as the Christian one or Allah etc, and then have the usual revert wars. Ttiotsw 09:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Today I'm bold - I've culled it. See history if you want it back. Ttiotsw 09:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest removing example on Sun age estimate

Nice article. I find this example incorrect but leave the edition to those active on this page. In the example under a false hypothesis ("if the sun energy come from a burning process") a false conclusion was reached (million instead of billions of years). However, the logic is correct. This is not an argument from ignorance. 83.250.248.45 00:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Luis

[edit] OK to Archive old 2003, 2004 talk ?

This talk page is messy. OK to archive this by year i.e. 2003 and 2004 (I'd leave 2005) ?

[edit] Every statement is wrong - including this article

I just happened to read this article and there is something fundamentally wrong with it. It is a basic theory of statistics that you can be certain of something by not finding any evidence. E.g. in a factory, they will sample TVs are prove that they are at least 90% confident that less than 0.1% of TVs will break down within the guarantee period by not finding a certain number of TVs that break down in a sample".

I quote: "Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven".

A lack of evidence for a systemic failure on a production is ABSOLUTE proof that a certain degree of confidence is stastically possible of the number of failures. IT IS ABSOLUTE, because it matters no a bit what the actual level of failure is, the statement about confidence in the level of defects is a formula dependant only on the number of units found not to have an evidence of failure! (FOr info lookup quality control and statistical sampling)

Another fallacy of the article is the assumption that one cannot exclude outcomes that are unreasonable. Let us say, you flip a coin, you are told it has not landed on the heads side, and it has not landed on the edge. Now it is reasonable to say it has landed on the tails side, but as the article is written, it is possible to introduce any number of "alternatives" such as "it is floating in a black hole", it has transmutated into an elephant and has landed on its trunk.

Logic is based on the premise that people won't talk patent nonsense, and therefore it is quite plausible to argue that you don't believe a coin will turn into an elephant and land on its trunk and so dismiss this possible outcome. Otherwise, you may as well all go home - because it is impossible to conclude anything. TIME FOR THE PUB! 88.109.77.5 10:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Let us see whether this article fails WP:Bollocks. First assume it does, we are therefore required to find evidence that it doesn't - I have a very fertile imagination - for any argument you can bring I accuse you of a lack of imagination to conceive of why you are wrong. Therefore you cannot prove it does not fail WP:Bollocks therefore QED it does - to which you will of course accuse me of a lack of imagination ..... and we have the normal Wikipedia nonsense! It's a load of WP:bollocks! 88.109.77.5 10:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


I agree with 88.109.77.5 wholeheartedly. It is impossible to say that one theory is correct because of a lack of evidence in a competing theory. Besides that, to me, God is a more outrageous solution than Evolution. One can not sensibly think that the Intellegent Design hypothesis (or Creationism if you perfer) is a simpler solution than Evolution, which is based on the observable particulars of life and the universe. I believe Dawkins best explains this when he speaks of the God of Gaps. Or, in other words, a God which exists only in the gaps of human knowledge.

JustinInSpace 16:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bayes's Theorem

Need to connect this article with probability (which may not be strict logic, but which Jaynes did call "the logic of science"). In reality all evidence is uncertain, and the absence of evidence does provide information. If you visit 10 lakes and in each of the first 9 catch hundreds of fish, but catch none in the 10th, you would be right to increase your confidence that the first 9 contain fish and the 10th doesn't, even though the possibility exists that there are fish in the 10th that didn't bite. (Note that the treatment of the first 9 is probabilistic too: the possibility also exists that those lakes don't contain any more fish because you just removed the last.)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/g/Talk%7EArgument_from_ignorance_cf23.html"