Argument from ignorance

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (added category)
(typo in bolded title, itals for latin version)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Argument form ignorance''' or '''argumentum ad ignorantiam''' in its most formal definition is a [[logical fallacy]] that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not been proven true. Another form that this fallacy can take is the form that of an '''argument from personal incredulity''' (also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction) which is that one's ''personal'' incredulity or credulity towards a premise is a logical reason for acceptance or rejection.  
+
'''Argument from ignorance''' or '''''argumentum ad ignorantiam''''' in its most formal definition is a [[logical fallacy]] that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not been proven true. Another form that this fallacy can take is the form that of an '''argument from personal incredulity''' (also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction) which is that one's ''personal'' incredulity or credulity towards a premise is a logical reason for acceptance or rejection.  
  
 
Almost all the claims from the [[anti-science]] movement revolve around some form of personal incredulity or argument from ignorance.
 
Almost all the claims from the [[anti-science]] movement revolve around some form of personal incredulity or argument from ignorance.

Revision as of 22:28, 4 September 2007

Argument from ignorance or argumentum ad ignorantiam in its most formal definition is a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not been proven true. Another form that this fallacy can take is the form that of an argument from personal incredulity (also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction) which is that one's personal incredulity or credulity towards a premise is a logical reason for acceptance or rejection.

Almost all the claims from the anti-science movement revolve around some form of personal incredulity or argument from ignorance.

These people will pick some aspect of a currently accepted scientific theory and argue that it must be wrong because they do not believe it explains some aspect of the natural world. Common examples of this are such claims as "you can't prove global warming is caused by humans," "I don't see how evolution could increase the complexity of an organism," " material properties of the brain cannot presently explicitly explain consciousness so it must be caused by non-materialist processes." More complex hypotheses can also take this form, such as Michael Behe's irreducible complexity, which is nothing but an argument from personal incredulity.

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support