Talk:Argument from incredulity
From EvoWiki
I have seen the light: The electro-magnetic theory of light cannot explain the creation of Cinema Paradiso, therefore the theory of light is suspect. --Jwalling 21:27, 28 Sep 2004 (BST)
Is there anyone who thinks this is of encyclopedia quality? An appeal to ignorance (argument _ad ignorantiam_) is an argument that there is no proof the hypothesis in question is false, like the famous one where theologs argue their hypothesis of an invisible X is one even a genius like Galileo could not prove false 68.6.40.203 12:10, 6 Aug 2005 (BST)
- I don't. This is on my list. But if you have an idea, just change it. --tk (t) 14:24, 7 Aug 2005 (BST)
- What about "Mermaids do exist because no one has been able to find evidence that they don't exist," or "There's no proof that dinosaurs didn't dance"?--Mr A. 16:05, 21 February 2006 (GMT)
Suggestion
SUGGESTION: That the burden of proof be reversed, whilst not abrogating the rules of logic. Hence, we have the propostion that: ...
"No god is detectable (even if that god exists)"
And "detectable" means just that. Detectable by any normal (metodologically naturalistic) means whatsoever. -- added to the page by anonymous user, moved her by tk (t) 19:16, 8 June 2006 (BST)
Criticism
Dabruster posted this:
- "The labeling of an argument as any of these is criticized as a common way of summarily waving off such arguments without attempting to understand where the arguments really break down."
The Fallacy Fallacy is the better place for this sort of statement, Dabruster. As for the link that was added [1], let me just say that the author of that blog did turn the argument into a logically valid one, but only by adding the unsubstantiated assertion that "If common descent were true, I would be able to imagine how human beings evolved from a unicellular organism." In order words, he just added the assumption that we already mentioned: the unwritten assumption that the speaker is a superhuman genius who should be able to understand everything. Adding silly premises will get you a silly conclusion.--Doddy 09:44, 20 August 2007 (BST)
