Jump to content


Photo

'appeal To Authority' Vs 'appeal To False Authority'

logical fallacy

  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 14 August 2017 - 12:20 PM

'Appeal To Authority' VS 'Appeal To False Authority'
Appeal to Authority, one name for the subject fallacy, goes by a several additional names, one of which is "appeal to false authority."

A short time after I began to post here and saw the charges of violations of one or another of the logical fallacies by name, I came to the conclusion that some of the names for them were not helpful and that taking the time to associate such names to the violation itself, did not help me in THE essential skill of critical analysis.

I have stated prior and will state again that referent analysis, honing that skill will lead to success in critical analysis--in every and all intellectual endeavors.

The recent exchanges concerning the "argument from authority" fallacy in this thread, have drawn attention to what I have identified as a problem with goes by the name "Appeal to Authority."
.
I quote myself, which means it's a not a good day.
.

... there seems to be a consensus that ipse dixit requires a false authority. This is an oversight in the definition that may lead one to commit an ipse dixit. I cite the expert, authoritative qualifications of Micheal Mann's "hockey stick" legerdemain as exquisite evidence that the consensus of the definition of "Appeal to Authority" lacks what I claim it to lack. ...

.
At the end of the day--I cite my continuous identification of the errors committed by a certain member who wields the fallacies by name--that one must be able to identify what's wrong with an assertion without having to know whether it does or does not violate some named fallacy.

Will anyone take issue with my analysis of this named fallacy or my insistence that it is referent analysis is superior to fallacy analysis?

#2 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 01 September 2017 - 05:14 AM

...

Wibble: Why, has a hominin fossil been found in the Mesozoic or something ?

...
However we do have enough push-backs now to show how arguing-from-silence is a rather obtuse fallacy silly people make. To say that "because we don't find X in earlier rock therefore it didn't exist", has been explained to you many times now Wibble, to be a type of arguing from ignorance.
...
So what are you going to do, repeat the fallacy? That's like declaring that stupidity is the new wisdom.
...

.
Here is example #2 in an explanation of "agrument from ignorance":
.

To this very day (at the time of this writing), science has been unable to create life from non-life; therefore, life must be a result of divine intervention.

.
Does this help one to understand the example where "X is absent, therefore never existed?" Let's look at example #1 at the link:
.

Although we have proven that the moon is not made of spare ribs, we have not proven that its core cannot be filled with them; therefore, the moon’s core is filled with spare ribs.

.
Well, there is much arguing to be found in threads concerning what is missing from the fossil records, though there be little to no discussion--other than my brief attempts--of what can't be fossilized, never was fossilized, what did exist but lost forever and what has yet to be discovered.

Let's ignore whether the mention of "arguing-from-silence" was gratuitious. There is an "exception" mentioned in the entry for "agument from ignorance" at the link. It is:
.

Exception: The assumption of a conclusion or fact deduced from evidence of absence, is not considered a fallacy, but valid reasoning.
 

Jimbo: Dude, did you spit your gum out in my drink?
Dick: No comment.
Jimbo: (after carefully pouring his drink down the sink looking for gum but finding none...) Jackass!

.
I don't find that particularly helpful.

There is the following from skepdic.com:
.

The argument to ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring when one claims that something is true only because it hasn't been proved false, or that something is false only because it has not been proved true. A claim's truth or falsity depends on supporting or refuting evidence to the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary or contradictory claim. (Contrary claims can't both be true but both can be false, unlike contradictory claims. "Jones was in Chicago at the time of the robbery" and "Jones was in Miami at the time of the robbery" are contrary claims--assuming there is no equivocation with 'Jones' or 'robbery'. "Jones was in Chicago at the time of the robbery" and "Jones was not in Chicago at the time of the robbery" are contradictory. A claim is proved true if its contradictory is proved false, and vice-versa.)

The fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is not designed by an intelligent creator does not prove that it is. Nor does the fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is designed by an intelligent creator prove that it isn't.



#3 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 03 September 2017 - 07:42 AM

As the OP discusses that I have found, often, that some of the acceptable names of the named are unhelpful and, sometimes, promote confusion, I thought I would research one that was used against "wibble" by the one who claims to know their respective meanings; it is referenced by the wielder as "ad nauseam (repeating a false argument)."

From my source, link follows, this so-called "fallacy"--both sources claim it is NOT--goes by:

argument by repetition
argumentum ad nauseam
argument from nagging
proof by assertion

Logical Form: X is true. X is true. X is true. X is true. X is true. X is true... etc.

Exception: When an opponent is attempting to misdirect the argument, repeating the argument to get back on track is a wise play.

(source)

I could find no reference to "false argument."

Here is a source from a guy who makes the claim of inventing the term.
.

...
Nowadays you are likely to be told that there are all sorts of fallacies -- a recent survey of 20 text books found eighty-nine different fallacies discussed in them. So-called "arguments ad" figure strongly in such lists from Locke onward, so I will illustrate the idea by introducing my own "discovery", argumentum ad nauseam. [from page 4]
...
So my latest contribution to the tradition is the discovery of AAN [Argumentum Ad Nauseam, from page 5]
...
But in fact AAN is not a fallacy, although it is a frequently objectionable move. [from page 6]

.
(source)
.
The guy asserts it is not a fallacy. At the source he explains in great detail his opinion of what is a fallacy and what is not a fallacy and the reasons.

Though I didn't read all of what's at this second source, I never found any assertions that AAN--the argument, not fallacy--is so-named and violated by presenting a false argument.

Again, it appears that the wielder of the named "fallacies" is all wet again.

Below, I reconstruct the posts leading to the erroneous charge, though I don't conclude whether "wibble" violated argumentum ad nauseam.
.

...

Wibble: Why, has a hominin fossil been found in the Mesozoic or something ?


A red-herring you repeat as an ad nauseam fallacy. (repeating a false argument).
...

.
Note that "wibble"'s putative quote can't be backtracked with a link, due the form the person quoting used. Here is the context:
.

AS IT TURNS OUT.. THE STENCH FROM THE DARWINISN MONKEY OF "EVOLUTION" IS BECOMING SO UNBEARABLE THAT EVEN DIE HARD ACCIDENTALISTS ARE FORCED INTO ADMITTING WHAT CREATIONISTS HAVE BEEN SCREAMING FROM THE MOUTAINTOPS FOR OVER A CENTURY AND A HALF... THAT THE ROTTING CORPSE OF DARWINISM IS DEAD DEAD DEAD... WHAT WILL THEY COME UP WITH NEXT??

THOUGHTS??

Who are you? How the story of human origins is being rewritten
The past 15 years have called into question every assumption about who we are and where we came from. Turns out our evolution is more baffling than we thought.

Think again, because over the past 15 years, almost every part of our story, every assumption about who our ancestors were and where we came from, has been called into question.
The new insights have some unsettling implications for how long we have walked the earth, and even who we really are.

https://www.newscien...eing-rewritten/
...
attachicon.gifhumanityrewrittenmain-800x533.jpg

.

Why, has a hominin fossil been found in the Mesozoic or something ?

You've not even read the article have you ?

.
Then, appears the accusation:
.

...
A red-herring you repeat as an ad nauseam fallacy. (repeating a false argument).
...



#4 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 03 September 2017 - 08:14 AM

Appeal to Authority, is citing X as an authority for a claim and then arguing that because X is an authority in that field, the claim must be true. 
It's a fallacy, because it doesn't say or examines the matter at hand. Hence no logical argument. 

 

Appeal to false authority is even worse. This is like citing Arnold Schwarzenegger for a claim on something and then hoping his prestige as actor of governor adds value to the argument. It is however false for the same reasons. 

 

Similar are appeal to consensus, ad populum, appeal to fear, appeal to ego, and the like. As long as no relevant facts are stated and valid conclusions are made, simply no logical arguments are made. You're just dealing with rhetorical devices to persuade people via status and emotions they may have. All of it is false logic, nevertheless it's quite commonly used, since they are often more persuasive than actual logical empirically based arguments are. 


  • mike the wiz likes this

#5 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 September 2017 - 08:38 AM

There is more to the ad nauseam fallacy than your token attempt to understand it Schera. Those who understand it properly know that it is usually referred to as an ad nauseam P.R.A.T.T.  which means "point refuted a thousand times."

 

I could have told you that had you asked me Schera. I obviously know all about these things, and I know them inside out. 

 

Ad nauseam in it's present context, to understand it properly in that context is all that's relevant. Appealing to the original meaning is the genetic fallacy.

 

The best way to understand the ad nauseam fallacy is that it is a point, or an argument or a belief of which the arguer uses repetition only, as it's backing, therefore what they claim is predicated on nothing more or less than repetition of the claim.

 

For example an absurd ad nauseam belief that persists even today is the anti-Semitic belief that Jews are unclean. 

 

You may have heard the phrase; "tell people a lie long enough and it becomes true."

 

Basically that is the tactic with the ad nauseam fallacy, that by repeating something people will believe it. 

 

If you actually read a history of Wibble's style of debate he repeats the request for finding a human out-of-place, very often even after it is explained to him in depth that the request has no intellectual meaning. 

 

For example, "mike the pee" or "pee stream" (as in; mike the wiz issues urine when he argues) is repeated by you as an ad nauseam fallacy, Schera, because you only base such a bare assertion on your own subjective and rather peculiar and pedantic, and a lot of the time plain absurd, way of seeing things.

 

Whereas the evidence submitted shows I score high percentile in logic and critical thinking tests.



#6 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 03 September 2017 - 09:52 AM

Appeal to Authority, is citing X as an authority for a claim and then arguing that because X is an authority in that field, the claim must be true. 
It's a fallacy, because it doesn't say or examines the matter at hand. Hence no logical argument. 
 
Appeal to false authority is even worse. This is like citing Arnold Schwarzenegger for a claim on something and then hoping his prestige as actor of governor adds value to the argument. It is however false for the same reasons. 
 
Similar are appeal to consensus, ad populum, appeal to fear, appeal to ego, and the like. As long as no relevant facts are stated and valid conclusions are made, simply no logical arguments are made. You're just dealing with rhetorical devices to persuade people via status and emotions they may have. All of it is false logic, nevertheless it's quite commonly used, since they are often more persuasive than actual logical empirically based arguments are.

.
Welcome to the bottom of the ignore list!! That for a blindingly irrelevant addition to what preceded your post!

Congratulations!

#7 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 September 2017 - 10:14 AM

Mark is absolutely correct. In fact because of my concentration on what intelligent and knowledgeable commentators have said about this fallacy I had forgot that the essence of the fallacy is in the name, "appeal", which Mark succinctly reminded me of. I laughed at myself because it was more simple than I thought. Often I find it's the obvious things that escape me rather than the more complicated things, but that's no discredit to Mark's acuity in accurately describing the fallacy.

 

 

 

To this very day (at the time of this writing), science has been unable to create life from non-life; therefore, life must be a result of divine intervention.

 

I'd say that's not the best example of an argument from ignorance, as really this argument is the god of the gaps fallacy. It would have been much better expressed thus;

 

"There is no evidence life can come from non-life therefore it can't." To say the contrary isn't the same thing as saying another thing entirely. Therefore life "being a result of divine intervention" is strictly speaking, a non-sequitur, an argument from ignorance would only be to conclude the contrary, denoted by the, "not".

 

The contrary to life coming from non-life, isn't "God creating", the contrary to life coming from non-life is "NOT life coming from non-life." (meaning the author has made an error, because God has nothing to do with the issue of whether life comes from non-life or, "not".)

 

Of course this isn't the best example because that isn't really the argument theists argue. We argue that there is an induction of experiments that support the claim that life only comes from life, and no evidence it comes from non-life.

 

A better example of an argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) is the following;

 

"There is no evidence he committed the crime therefore he did not commit it."

 

Conversely;

 

"There is no evidence he didn't commit the crime therefore he did commit it."

 

Sometimes Darwinists use this fallacy by arguing thus; "You can't show any limits to macro evolution as far as I am concerned therefore there aren't any."

 

Equivalent;

 

"You can't show that Usain Bolt can't run at 40mph therefore he can."

 

And I'm "LAUGHING at the superior intellect" Schera. - Captain Kirk - The Wrath Of Khan.

 

:P


  • MarkForbes likes this

#8 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 03 September 2017 - 11:30 AM

The meanings of evidence.  Our mind assigns meaning based largely on context. That is one of the characteristics of being intelligent and concious (human).

What is meant by the word evidence in this sentence:  "There is no evidence he committed the crime therefore he did not commit it." Think about it in context.  The   most common meaniing     "evidence" is the "effect" of a causal relationship. Life or an animal is what we observe and "is" evidence (the effect).  However, In the quoted sentence "evidence" seems to mean the cauaal agent itself! Or the reasasoning used     tto draw a conclusion and answer the qyestion, "What cause the effect (evidence I see before me! Can an effect cause itself? Think.



#9 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 September 2017 - 12:19 PM

Mike with fallacies it's all about mistakes though. 

 

The reason with arguing from ignorance, we can't conclude that a lack of evidence means someone didn't commit the crime is just because there is the possibility that they did commit the crime despite no evidence.

 

A smart criminal won't leave the effect of leaving fingers on things, (finger prints), he will not leave any trace of his DNA or whatever, (if he can).

 

If we conclude someone did commit a crime because there is no evidence they didn't, obviously they could be innocent as it is possible they didn't commit the crime but just can't provide evidence they didn't, like an alibi.

 

Imagine going to prison because you couldn't provide an alibi, but you knew you were innocent. Imagine if someone went free from prison because there was no evidence they did the crime but they knew they did do the crime. 

 

Logic is all about correctness. Absolute correctness that can be provably deduced, with no possibility of error. Imagine if this was not so! Imagine if in mathematics, people were as sloppy as they were when they argued, and they said things like this, "2 add 4 is seven because I love maths therefore I am correct". Or, "3 is not a prime number because you can divide it by 2 and get 1.5"

 

Mike, logic is boring and most people don't studied it. People obsessed with correctness do. :D

 

I apologise if you fell asleep reading this post. Lol.



#10 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 03 September 2017 - 12:47 PM

Anybody who has lived life enough knows to be very suspicious of people who refer to themselves in the third person.

#11 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 03 September 2017 - 01:17 PM

Now, this is funny. This is an example of posting while not having the proper time.
.

Appeal to Authority, is citing X ...

.
Welcome to the bottom of the ignore list!! That for a blindingly irrelevant addition to what preceded your post!

Congratulations!

.
I apologize for my error: "Appeal to Authority" was the particular "fallacy" that I chose to create this thread.

I did not give a good name to the thread, as it is about the general application of named fallacies and the dangers thereof.

The second source that appears in post #3 is a treatment of a theory of fallacies, which is very ambitious.

Argumentum ad nauseam

"MarkForbes" has been removed from the list. Duh to me.

----Edit------------

Today is the 60th anniversary party for my parents--big party and relatives-, out of town--and I should have been focusing on that.

#12 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 03 September 2017 - 05:02 PM

Logic is all about correctness. Absolute correctness that can be provably deduced, with no possibility of error. Imagine if this was not so! Imagine if in mathematics, people were as sloppy as they were when they argued, and they said things like this, "2 add 4 is seven because I love maths therefore I am correct". Or, "3 is not a prime number because you can divide it by 2 and get 1.5"

It is entirely possible to produce a flawless logical argument and still end up with a result that is not true.

 

This most commonly happens when the premise is flawed.



#13 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 04 September 2017 - 03:02 AM

Appeal to Authority, is citing X as an authority for a claim and then arguing that because X is an authority in that field, the claim must be true.
It's a fallacy, because it doesn't say or examines the matter at hand. Hence no logical argument.

Appeal to false authority is even worse. This is like citing Arnold Schwarzenegger for a claim on something and then hoping his prestige as actor of governor adds value to the argument. It is however false for the same reasons.

Similar are appeal to consensus, ad populum, appeal to fear, appeal to ego, and the like. As long as no relevant facts are stated and valid conclusions are made, simply no logical arguments are made. You're just dealing with rhetorical devices to persuade people via status and emotions they may have. All of it is false logic, nevertheless it's quite commonly used, since they are often more persuasive than actual logical empirically based arguments are.

.
Now that I've attempted to understand the post, I can tell you that it reinforces my belief that utter confusion is the likely result when one relies on them. What do I mean? This: "...citing Arnold Schwarzenegger for a claim on something and then hoping his prestige as actor of (sic) governor adds value to the argument. It is however false for the same reasons.

What is false?

Next, compare your "appeal to false authority" to this:
.

Irrelevant Authority:

More accurately called Irrelevant Authority, Inappropriate Authority, or Questionable Authority, Irrelevant Authority is citing someone as an expert even though they are not really an expert on the question under discussion; their expertise is in an unrelated field; their "expertise" is not in a legitimate discipline at all (e.g. an "expert" psychic or ghost hunter); their expertise is what is under discussion; they have not been demonstrated to actually exist; or they made the statement in a state where their judgment was suspect (ie, they were drunk, high, senile, stressed, angered, etc). In some cases, they do possess a legitimate expertise and renown in some field, it's just that said field is unrelated to the one being discussed.

.
(source)

Anyone who relies on these and anyone's "authority" on these named "things" is courting disaster and promotes confusion.

At the end of the day, an assertion is either true or false or yet to be determined no matter who asserts it and that person's credentials or lack thereof.

#14 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 05 September 2017 - 12:50 PM

 

Piasan: It is entirely possible to produce a flawless logical argument and still end up with a result that is not true.

 

This most commonly happens when the premise is flawed.

 

But it wouldn't be, "flawless" if one of the premises wasn't true. For an argument to be flawless it must have true premises, a valid form and obviously the conclusion then follows.

 

No, logic will never let you down if you figure out why the tollens/ponen rules will always lead you right.

 

A conditional implication is the easiest way to show why obeying such rules is necessary;

 

"If I have found a human body then it is either male or female."

 

(Now out of the following, which ones are correct;

 

1. If it is male or female, therefore it's a human body.

2. We have not found it to be a human body therefore it is not male or female.

3. It is not male or female therefore it is not a human body.

 

(find the one that follows the tollens rule, and is correct. Two others are fallacies.)



#15 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 07 September 2017 - 05:23 PM


Mike the wiz said:

Mike with fallacies it's all about mistakes though. 
 
The reason with arguing from ignorance, we can't conclude that a lack of evidence means someone didn't commit the crime is just because there is the possibility that they did commit the crime despite no evidence.

And it's the not knowing that gets us. We simply often do not have enough "information" to make the decision who did what. We are a finfiin sources of information. "A man needs to know his limiiitations." However it is all to easy to slip into creative mode and create a persom eith guillty or innocent.

All this means we can use something other than evidence (our creative ability) to draw conclusions.

Think, Mike. If a crime has been comitted there is evidence. For exmple a body can be eviddence if the person did not kill themselves! There is therefore evidence.

 
A smart criminal won't leave the effect of leaving fingers on things, (finger prints), he will not leave any trace of his DNA or whatever, (if he can).

But neither will an inncent person. LOL
In that case we have lost an effect (finger prints or DNA ) and a way to connect a specific person to the main crimme (the murder).

 

A lot of people don't wish to acknowlledge there is no physics to our mental life. Information and thinking is invisiblllle. And yet It is thinking that is behind any crime. We often have no physical evidence for thinking that led to a crime.

If we conclude someone did commit a crime because there is no evidence they didn't, obviously they could be innocent as it is possible they didn't commit the crime but just can't provide evidence they didn't, like an alibi.

There often is no physical evidence that can link a person to a crime. This is especially true inthe case of an innocesnt

We oftem don't know which specific person comitted the crime because we don't have finger prints or DNA which would, because of the uniqunss of DNA and finger prints, point to to a specfic person. But there is still evidence there was a muder ( a dead body). There is just no way to connect a specific person to the murder at this time.
I think the "real" error would be drawing the conclusion that we somehow "magically" know our suspect is guilty! We just don't know!
 
Imagine going to prison because you couldn't provide an alibi, but you knew you were innocent. Imagine if someone went free from prison because there was no evidence they did the crime but they knew they did do the crime. 
[/quote]
Unforuantely without God to ask, that's the nature of the beast. Life as we live it today is not the Kingdom of God. God told Cain He knew he killed his brother! We can't read minds as God can. Something like 3.5% of people that are in jail are inocent! What to do?

Logic is all about correctness. Absolute correctness that can be provably deduced, with no possibility of error. Imagine if this was not so! Imagine if in mathematics, people were as sloppy as they were when they argued, and they said things like this, "2 add 4 is seven because I love maths therefore I am correct". Or, "3 is not a prime number because you can divide it by 2 and get 1.5"
 
Mike, logic is boring and most people don't studied it. People obsessed with correctness do.
 

All humans are fallible flawed creatures. There is little we can do about that. We are subjected to futility. "let he who is without sin cast the first stone!"

I apologise if you fell asleep reading this post. Lol

To do Science means to USE precision thinkiing along with the ability to admit that a particular hypothesis hasn't been proven! The mad scientist holds on to his hypothesis despite difficulty proving it.

#16 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 08 September 2017 - 01:53 AM

...

...
A smart criminal won't leave the effect of leaving fingers on things, (finger prints), he will not leave any trace of his DNA or whatever, (if he can).
...

.
But neither will an inncent person.
...

.
An innocent may or may not leave evidence of being at or near the scene of a crime, intentionally or otherwise. It happens every day, ever week, and so on.

#17 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 08 September 2017 - 02:52 AM

Mike, you're kind of making my point though, yes - that is why an argument from ignorance isn't a sound argument, because it doesn't give us anything to go on.

 

But this can change also depending on the circumstance because an absence of positive evidence can also count as falsification evidence. I hold this axiom to be true;

 

An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence unless the evidence is conspicuously absent.

 

So for example, in the fossil record we would not say that because there is only X amount of animals that the ones found are the only ones to have existed in the past. However, this can change depending upon whether evidence is expected or not. Because the fossils are allegedly a history of life on earth, no matter how much mental gymnastics is performed, the truth is a history of life on earth would certainly show up some history of life on earth, Lol! So then we can say with certainty that the millions of transitional forms should certainly show up in at least a small amount, (which is to be generous).

 

Yes, we are limited by the things we cannot know at times. There is no perfect solution, I am only saying that the AFI argument is wrong as an argument for those reasons.


  • Mike Summers likes this

#18 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 08 September 2017 - 04:02 AM

...
An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence unless the evidence is conspicuously absent.

So for example, in the fossil record we would not say that because there is only X amount of animals that the ones found are the only ones to have existed in the past. However, this can change depending upon whether evidence is expected or not. Because the fossils are allegedly a history of life on earth, no matter how much mental gymnastics is performed, the truth is a history of life on earth would certainly show up some history of life on earth, Lol! So then we can say with certainty that the millions of transitional forms should certainly show up in at least a small amount, (which is to be generous).
...

.

...
To do Science means to USE precision thinkiing along with the ability to admit that a particular hypothesis hasn't been proven! The mad scientist holds on to his hypothesis despite difficulty proving it.

.
Mr Summers, perpetuation of the low-quality of debate is the responsibility of those who participate in the perpetuation of the low-quality of debate. I have stated the obvious, no offense to anyone.

I now ask, Do you intend to be part of the solution or part of the perpetual problem?

In the top-most quote from "w-the-w", do you Mr. Summers understand this??:
.

... in the fossil record we would not say that because there is (sic) only X amount of animals that the ones found are the only ones to have existed in the past.

.
Please demonstrate to us all that you do with a rewording of that sentence.

I will wait for your reply of a statement (rewording) or a statement that you refuse to do so. I will give my interpretation of it's meaning in leui of yours.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users