Argument from ignorance....?

[casey]

I had a discussion with someone, and we touched the topic of argumentum ad ignorantiam.


I put it in this forum because it is more related to Newton's Law of Motion (or any law for that matter). If the law is true because there hasnt been any observation that contradict that, wouldnt that mean the law was justified by argument from ignorance?


He then challenged, by proposing his own 'law' that everything that human can conceive is originated from reality (or combination of more than one). For example, human can conceive of tooth fairy by combining the idea of fairy (or any mystical being) and disappearance of teeth (???). Honestly, I cannot find any rebuttal (because I do npt know where to start), but also he challenge me to falsify his 'law' by finding anything that human can conceive that is not from reality.

[He actually continue that "since human can conceive the concept of god", therefore "the concept of god is derived from reality". If you want to write the refutation for this argument for god, you are welcome. But I am more concerned with his assertion that any law being derived from argument ad ignorantiam, which is also comparable to his 'law').



Thanks in advance,

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

If the law is true because there hasnt been any observation that contradict that, wouldnt that mean the law was justified by argument from ignorance?

We claim Newtonian physics is a decent representation of reality because it makes predictions that are testable, have been carried out, and have validated Newtonian physics to a degree. Of course, they're just an approximation and relativity improves upon it, but that's a different discussion.

but also he challenge me to falsify his 'law' by finding anything that human can conceive that is not from reality.

Take Newton's laws of motion, and start adding crap. Throw in a temperature coefficient to the equation for momentum. Acceleration is the change in velocity divided by time you say? How about acceleration equals the square root of change in velocity, multiplied by time, squared. Equations are no less a description of reality than what humanity can perceive.

He actually continue that "since human can conceive the concept of god", therefore "the concept of god is derived from reality"

On this is easy to rebuttle. Ask him about... I dunno...

For example, human can conceive of tooth fairy

Yes! That! Ask him about tooth faeries, Santa clause, Allah, Thor, Zues, etc, etc, etc.

But addressing more your point, Newton's Laws aren't derived from a lack of observation that they aren't true. What the creationist is trying to do is use the same backwards logic that they use to defend the existence of their god. "Well you can't prove he DOESN'T exist!!1!one." He doesn't realise that we demonstrate things to be true not by failing to find them false, but by testing them and confirming their veracity.


Edit: fixed some wording.

 

[Squawk]

He doesn't realise that we demonstrate things to be true not by failing to find them false, but by testing them and confirming their veracity

I'd suggest this is completely backwards. We present a method of falsification, and then fail to falsify. The credence given to the idea is based on the importance of the falsification point.

There used to be a great vid of Feynman discussing this on youtube, but I think it's been taken down. It concerned the search for a new law.

 

[borrofburi]

He actually continue that "since human can conceive the concept of god", therefore "the concept of god is derived from reality".

Sure. I fully and 100% agree that the concept of god is derived from reality. Your friend however seems to be falsely equivocating between "derived from reality" and "exists in reality". Which is rather silly, since he just made the distinction a little bit ago with the tooth fairy... Surely he's not going to argue that god, the tooth fairy, vishnu, and thor all exist...

And indeed, there's an evid3nc3 video where he talks about seeing that gods are just humans with some of their limits removed. He even details a simple transformation from human into Yahweh... I just don't remember which one it is, and do not have the time to check them at the moment.

 

[lrkun]

I had a discussion with someone, and we touched the topic of argumentum ad ignorantiam.


I put it in this forum because it is more related to Newton's Law of Motion (or any law for that matter). If the law is true because there hasnt been any observation that contradict that, wouldnt that mean the law was justified by argument from ignorance?


He then challenged, by proposing his own 'law' that everything that human can conceive is originated from reality (or combination of more than one). For example, human can conceive of tooth fairy by combining the idea of fairy (or any mystical being) and disappearance of teeth (???). Honestly, I cannot find any rebuttal (because I do npt know where to start), but also he challenge me to falsify his 'law' by finding anything that human can conceive that is not from reality.

[He actually continue that "since human can conceive the concept of god", therefore "the concept of god is derived from reality". If you want to write the refutation for this argument for god, you are welcome. But I am more concerned with his assertion that any law being derived from argument ad ignorantiam, which is also comparable to his 'law').



Thanks in advance,

I don't really see a problem with this. I mean, we humans, are capable of imagining lots of things. Take anime for example. Just because we can picture it out doesn't mean it's real, although, the idea came from reality. It's just a memory thing. You remember what you imagine, especially when such is weird.

The only thing you need to point out to the person is this: Sure, any idea is based on reality, but whether it reflects reality is a whole different scenario, because then, there is a need to provide evidence, especially on the part on him who claims. And if he can't provide proof for it, it only means he's arguing from ignorance, because evidence is lacking.

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

He doesn't realise that we demonstrate things to be true not by failing to find them false, but by testing them and confirming their veracity

I'd suggest this is completely backwards. We present a method of falsification, and then fail to falsify. The credence given to the idea is based on the importance of the falsification point.

You're right. I stand corrected.

 

[Ad Initium]

I had a discussion with someone, and we touched the topic of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

I put it in this forum because it is more related to Newton's Law of Motion (or any law for that matter). If the law is true because there hasnt been any observation that contradict that, wouldnt that mean the law was justified by argument from ignorance?

No it would not.
Because the first counter argument would be, in this case:
(A) Who made the law?
And a believer would argue God has, ... which would result in a circular argument.

Look back at what you are saying!
(1) There is a Law (newtonian or what ever) specifing and explaining something in nature.
(2) The law is true ... HALT !
(2.a) Says who? Who claims that law is true? If you respond with -God- here, then the discussion ends, because you are already dealing with something not adhering to logic, and EVERYTHING following is based on the super natural. After the super natural, no logic follows!
(2.b) Says why? Why does the claimer say it is true? Does the claimer have evidence and FACTS to proof the Law to be true? In case of a God, you will NEVER be able to proof it as God is beyond you. The WHY can only be explained by saying that "he walks in mysterious ways" and no human argument will then ever do.

You seem to forget "assumption" here. You can fairly assume something to be true and know the reasons why it is true, ... but be totally wrong on it, if your believes are not based on scientific facts. You THINK some law is true because you have never seen something to contradict it. BUT that does NOT make the law true.

He then challenged, by proposing his own 'law' that everything that human can conceive is originated from reality (or combination of more than one).

I can think of 1000 own laws to contradict him. Science does not allow that freedom without backup. It is fine for him to bring in his own idea's, but they need to be based on something. Not float on air. In his spirit I could argue too and make my own laws in an argument you have to counter. Let me make some up for you to counter in his spirit, to show you how easy you can be tricked in a discussion:
(1) God is infinte, lives out of time.
(2) God is all knowing. Name me something God does not know.
(3) The devil put fosils in the earth to trick men to not believe in a creator.
(4) We humans are superior to animals. Name me an animal that put his kind on the moon?
(5) The Redd Cross shows God's work on earth and how much he cares.
(6) I prayed and my Sister got cured from cancer.

Ha right you got me ... these are not specific laws, but points believers like to make to proof the exiostance for gGod. mmmmm I do not see it ... do you?

Let us make atleast one law then that is hard to beat:
(A) God's love for raped females is clear when these females love their kids.
(B) A raped female who does not love her child is under the influence of the devil still!

For example, human can conceive of tooth fairy by combining the idea of fairy (or any mystical being) and disappearance of teeth (???). Honestly, I cannot find any rebuttal (because I do npt know where to start), but also he challenge me to falsify his 'law' by finding anything that human can conceive that is not from reality

His point is actually very nice and I understand you having difficulty with it. The Tooth-fairy is just a replacement of God, but you fail to notice that. It should actually have been YOUR argument against God, but you failed on that, and he beat you to the punch. So you missed the tooth-fairy ... no biggy.

Atheist have many more slugs in their guns against this. Ask him if he believed in Santa Claus as a kid. If he did, ask him WHY he believed in Santa Claus and also ask him WHY he stopped believing in Santa Claus. Notice his points on WHY he stopped believing in Santa, ... go at it. I f you are unclear on something, continue asking. Information is your defence and attack. If you notice a failure on his Santa argument, ... jump in and use the same argument for him against his God.

[He actually continue that "since human can conceive the concept of god", therefore "the concept of god is derived from reality". If you want to write the refutation for this argument for god, you are welcome. But I am more concerned with his assertion that any law being derived from argument ad ignorantiam, which is also comparable to his 'law').

Thanks in advance

Listen ... the main argument is BELIEVE here, or FAITH as an other word Only a few decades ago people actually believed SMOKING was good. In the victorian age lots of things we now consider horribly bad, were considered therapy back then. Yes even stuff like X-rays and such were considered good for the body. ... Ask him why for people back then, those kinds of things were considered good.

Did you know that lots of ancient make-up used highly deadly chemicals? Now we know better to not use them on our bodies, ... yeah ... NOW. Ancient make-up used stuff like arcinic and lead.

Hell, tons of Roman aqua-structure was made up of lead-piping, ... a deadly substance. Let him explain that.

Ask him about belief .. why is belief now so different then ages ago. Why do we KNOW thing better now then then. Keep pounding and pounding and pounding. Keep naming examples.

If he asks stuff like "What has Roman lead piping to do with God?" then you simply explain to him that our SCIENTIFIC knowledge has grown and we now know better then medieval science.

You will prevail in the end, .. for one and one simple reason that you are at the right side. Yu may make mistake on arguments, .. but reality is yours.

 

[Case]

He doesn't realise that we demonstrate things to be true not by failing to find them false, but by testing them and confirming their veracity

I'd suggest this is completely backwards. We present a method of falsification, and then fail to falsify. The credence given to the idea is based on the importance of the falsification point.

There used to be a great vid of Feynman discussing this on youtube, but I think it's been taken down. It concerned the search for a new law.

This one?
28:00 + should be of special interest.
As is 37:40+ . I have yet to watch all of Feynman's lectures available... he's fascinating, enthusiastic and best of all - funny.

 

[Jebez42]

There used to be a great vid of Feynman discussing this on youtube, but I think it's been taken down. It concerned the search for a new law.

This one?
28:00 + should be of special interest.
As is 37:40+ . I have yet to watch all of Feynman's lectures available... he's fascinating, enthusiastic and best of all - funny.

A bit off topic, but I believe Microsoft own the "rights" to that lecture series and have created Project Tuva to showcase it and SilverLight

http://research.microsoft.com/apps/tools/tuva/

It has been over a year since I`ve viewed it, but I think the above link is worth bookmarking. In fact, I'm going to watch it again with my now college bound son. Should be fun. We'll take notes right on the video itself.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I had a discussion with someone, and we touched the topic of argumentum ad ignorantiam.


I put it in this forum because it is more related to Newton's Law of Motion (or any law for that matter). If the law is true because there hasnt been any observation that contradict that, wouldnt that mean the law was justified by argument from ignorance?

Well, the first thing to note is that argumentum ad ignorantiam is a deductive fallacy, while Newton's Laws of Motion are inductive, so the charge of fallacy doesn't apply.

This is a charge often levelled by the credulous, and it's very rarely addressed in this simple form.

Secondly, inductive laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are mathematical descriptions of observations. There is an important ontological point to be made here, namely that science is in the business of describing observations, not of describing reality, on which it actually has no voice. Thus, we don't see valid science as being 'true', but of being in accord with what is observed.

Finally, an argument from ignorance is drawing a conclusion based on no observations, not on no countering observations. The argument from ignorance applies only when there is no evidence either way. The observations upon which Newton's Laws of Motion are erected constitute evidence in support of those laws, so again the charge of fallacy doesn't apply.

He then challenged, by proposing his own 'law' that everything that human can conceive is originated from reality (or combination of more than one). For example, human can conceive of tooth fairy by combining the idea of fairy (or any mystical being) and disappearance of teeth (???). Honestly, I cannot find any rebuttal (because I do npt know where to start), but also he challenge me to falsify his 'law' by finding anything that human can conceive that is not from reality.

Well, Yablo might want a word with him about that, not just in originality terms, but also in the form they take.

I can conceive of a furblegurble, but I challenge your friend to show me one that actually exists. You'll also note that, like those celever christians, I didn't give any description or characteristics, but it's still your fault if you can't fnd one, and I am therefore entirely justified in asserting its existence.

[He actually continue that "since human can conceive the concept of god", therefore "the concept of god is derived from reality". If you want to write the refutation for this argument for god, you are welcome. But I am more concerned with his assertion that any law being derived from argument ad ignorantiam, which is also comparable to his 'law').

Tell him that observations are not ignorance. What we have here is not argumentum ad ignorantiam but argumentum ad argumentum (yes, I know, but argumentum is actually the Latin word for evidence; ah, well!)