Argumentum ad ignorantiam

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Counter-apologetics: insert qualifier)
(various wikif., copyediting)
Line 1: Line 1:
The '''argumentum ad ignorantiam''', also known as the '''argument from ignorance''' or '''argument from (personal) incredulity''', is a [[logical fallacy]] wherein the speaker claims that because a subject is not well understood, either by the speaker or in general, it cannot be true.
+
The '''argumentum ad ignorantiam''' (also known as the '''argument from ignorance''' or '''argument from (personal) incredulity''') is a [[logical fallacy]] wherein the speaker claims that because a subject is not well understood, either by the speaker or by others, it cannot be true.
  
 
==Apologetics==
 
==Apologetics==
The argumentum ad ignorantiam is commonly used as a proof of the existence of [[God]].  The argument goes like this: "How could this big, complicated world have come into existence without an intelligence behind it?"
+
The ''argumentum ad ignorantiam'' is commonly used as a proof of the existence of [[God]].  The argument goes something like this:
 +
# Gee, this sure is a big, complicated world.
 +
# I don't see how it could have come into existence without an intelligence behind it.
 +
# [[Therefore, God exists.]]
  
This argument is also used to dismiss the possibility of biological [[evolution]], in this fashion: "Evolution says that people just came into existence by chance. This is clearly preposterous; I cannot see how this is possible, so evolution must be false."
+
This argument is also used to dismiss the possibility of biological [[evolution]] in this fashion:
 +
# Evolution says that people just came into existence by chance.
 +
# I cannot see how this is possible, so evolution must be false.
  
 
[[Irreducible complexity]] is also based on the argument from ignorance.
 
[[Irreducible complexity]] is also based on the argument from ignorance.
  
 
==Counter-apologetics==
 
==Counter-apologetics==
Often a subject such as evolution is not understood by the speaker, but well understood by many others, such as scienctists.  Of course, [[evolution is not a theory of chance]], and has well established mechanisms.
+
Sometimes a subject such as evolution is not understood by the speaker but may be well understood by many others, such as [[scientist]]s.  Of course, [[evolution is not a theory of chance]], and has well established mechanisms underlying it.
  
Even when a subject is not well understood (i.e., the origin of the [[universe]]) that is not sufficient grounds for assuming an unproven answer like God.  Since the "explanation" of God is more complex than the entities that are purportedly explained by God, introducing God without [[evidence]] is simply [[begging the question]].
+
Even when a subject is not well understood (i.e., the [[origin of the universe]]), that is not sufficient grounds for assuming an unproven answer like "God did it".  Since the "explanation" of God is more complex than the entities that are purportedly explained by God, introducing God without [[evidence]] is simply [[begging the question]].
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
 
 
* [http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html Argument to ignorance] at [[The Skeptic's Dictionary]]
 
* [http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html Argument to ignorance] at [[The Skeptic's Dictionary]]
 
* [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Argument_from_incredulity Argument from incredulity] at [[Evowiki]]
 
* [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Argument_from_incredulity Argument from incredulity] at [[Evowiki]]
  
 
[[Category:Logical fallacies]]
 
[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Revision as of 20:02, 25 August 2007

The argumentum ad ignorantiam (also known as the argument from ignorance or argument from (personal) incredulity) is a logical fallacy wherein the speaker claims that because a subject is not well understood, either by the speaker or by others, it cannot be true.

Apologetics

The argumentum ad ignorantiam is commonly used as a proof of the existence of God. The argument goes something like this:

  1. Gee, this sure is a big, complicated world.
  2. I don't see how it could have come into existence without an intelligence behind it.
  3. Therefore, God exists.

This argument is also used to dismiss the possibility of biological evolution in this fashion:

  1. Evolution says that people just came into existence by chance.
  2. I cannot see how this is possible, so evolution must be false.

Irreducible complexity is also based on the argument from ignorance.

Counter-apologetics

Sometimes a subject such as evolution is not understood by the speaker but may be well understood by many others, such as scientists. Of course, evolution is not a theory of chance, and has well established mechanisms underlying it.

Even when a subject is not well understood (i.e., the origin of the universe), that is not sufficient grounds for assuming an unproven answer like "God did it". Since the "explanation" of God is more complex than the entities that are purportedly explained by God, introducing God without evidence is simply begging the question.

External links

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox