Talk:Argument from ignorance
Who made all that bold text? It makes the article look stoooopid. Bohdan
- Its like you know wiki precedent to bold the words that you are writing the article about. tmtoulouse oppress 22:32, 31 August 2007 (CDT)
- On the contrary, one normally bolds the the title in the first line. You bolded about five phrases. It's no wonder O'leary schools you all the time! Bohdan
[edit] Lead quote
The quote seems to be referring to those who misuse the concept of "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" in the sense that "no evidence for a conspiracy is proof that a conspiracy exists because it's covering up it's existence, as proved by it's lack of evidence." While that's a point that deserves to be discussed, it doesn't seem like the article is really talking about that particularly fallacy (whose name I'm not sure of). Thoughts? ThunderkatzHo! 22:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I removed the bit that says the old saw "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is "basically wrong", because it is not basically wrong. It is wrong in certain contexts, namely those that entail that presence is likely to produce evidence. Bah. Phiwum (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Incorrect characterisation
"The concept of irreducible complexity is based entirely around this idea of personal incredulity, that one person (Michael Behe) cannot see how something evolved naturally, it can't possibly evolve naturally." This is BS. It's based around the fact that the evidence points to it being too complex to have evolved naturally. — Unsigned, by: 41.151.211.161 / talk / contribs
- You mean, "I don't understand that nature is more complex than I can imagine, therefore an invisible magic man did it." SophieWilder 10:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- YOU mean, "I can imagine nature did it therefor no help was needed." ;) — Unsigned, by: 41.151.211.161 / talk / contribs
- Exactly. Nature appears capable of such things without outside help, at least according to people who have studied the evidence. SophieWilder 11:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- "Nature appears" Yes nature appears. Well carry on then and don't look at the evidence and counter evidence.
- "according to people who have studied the evidence." I thought I'd better to say that again because you appear to have missed it last time. SophieWilder 11:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Figures of scientists who don't believe in natural evolution stand at like 13% now? Those are likely the ones who have studied the evidence. A large portion of the remaining 87% that believe evolution through natural processes likely haven't studied the evidence at all. You are using the argument from popularity. Doesn't impress.— Unsigned, by: 41.150.15.82 / talk / contribs
- Show me the source for this claim of thirteen percent. Let's study the evidence for your claim. And this thirteen percent of scientists had better be all biologists (since we're discussing the complexity of organisms). No engineers, please. SophieWilder 15:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- [1] — Unsigned, by: 41.151.214.72 / talk / contribs
- Show me the source for this claim of thirteen percent. Let's study the evidence for your claim. And this thirteen percent of scientists had better be all biologists (since we're discussing the complexity of organisms). No engineers, please. SophieWilder 15:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Figures of scientists who don't believe in natural evolution stand at like 13% now? Those are likely the ones who have studied the evidence. A large portion of the remaining 87% that believe evolution through natural processes likely haven't studied the evidence at all. You are using the argument from popularity. Doesn't impress.— Unsigned, by: 41.150.15.82 / talk / contribs
- "according to people who have studied the evidence." I thought I'd better to say that again because you appear to have missed it last time. SophieWilder 11:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- "Nature appears" Yes nature appears. Well carry on then and don't look at the evidence and counter evidence.
- Exactly. Nature appears capable of such things without outside help, at least according to people who have studied the evidence. SophieWilder 11:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- YOU mean, "I can imagine nature did it therefor no help was needed." ;) — Unsigned, by: 41.151.211.161 / talk / contribs
- Anyways, the point remains the same. Just because ID proponents don't understand something doesn't mean it's false. "Complexity" has been tracked and explained quite thoroughly.--"Shut up, Brx." 16:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)