Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal Cujo's Journal: The Argument from Ignorance 11

Journal by Cujo

A nice capsule discussion of the common fallacy known as the Argument from Ignorance.

There is a more "subtle" related fallacy that I've yet to find a name for - I'm sure someone has researched this. I call it "empty omnipotence" - explaining everything and nothing at once. Surely you've seen this stunt pulled before, and not always as a joke?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Argument from Ignorance More

The Argument from Ignorance

Comments Filter:
  • Are you referring to circular reasoning?

    • I don't believe so, unless there's something I've missed. Circular reasoning if I understand it, boils down to A is true because A is true, which isn't fallacious, simply trivial. Of course, there are endless arguments about what is circular and what is merely iterative.

      Empty omnipotence is using an explanation that could explain anything, because it explains nothing. I need to clarify, I'll admit.

      • A non sequitur, perhaps? 2 + 2 = 4, therefore guns smell like green chees.;)

        • No, not exactly. It's really confusing necesssary and sufficient conditions. The closest I can come to abstracting it is the claim that A is necessary for B, B is true, therefore A (so far not a fallacy). However, the premise is false. A is sufficient for almost anything, including B, but not necessary. B is true, but this does not imply A.

          For example, we look up into the night sky and see a bright light moving across the sky. One sufficient explanation would be "alien spacecraft with highly advanc

          • I tend to call those "conspiracy theories", but I am sure there's a latin term.:)
          • Sounds like "affirming the consequent".

            If A is sufficient but not necessary for B, and they say since B then A, it sounds like a person's mixing up their cause and effect.

            For instance if A is a subset of B. Proving an element is in A implies the element is in B. It is sufficient, but not necessary.

            Something can be an element of B without being in A.

            An example: B is the set {U.S. states} and A is the set {Maine}.

            • Yes, well reduced to logic, that's would be it werer it a formal fallacy. However, I believe that the fallacy is more of an informal one, and has to with misconceptions about the nature of explanation.

              • Oh. People see a new phenomenon and naturally try to associate it to what they've already familiar with.

                I find people like what's familiar. It makes them feel safer. So they'll choose explanations that they're more comfortable with, that fit their preexisting worldview. This worldview tends not to be subject to easy change, particularly through negotiation. So it inherently balks at unappealing and scary alternatives.

                The funny thing is that people may be more comfortable with alien conspiracy theories tha

                • Yes, but the cheap approach is to pick a comfortable explanation that could explain anything, so that new data can't directly contradict your belief. This strategy doesn't really work, but is often tried.

                • "The funny thing is that people may be more comfortable with alien conspiracy theories than with scientific explanations. They get more warm fuzzies from the former."

                  Add in a certain need to feel special, and you're right on the money. I did fifteen years of 'UFO' research that varied from the purely objective to the outright skeptical towards the end, and it's a complete eyeopener in terms of the lengths people go to to make their worldview (perceptive paradigm) work.

                  "People struggle to make sense of

Slashdot Top Deals

<< WAIT >>

Close