Jump to content

Talk:Argument from ignorance: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)
 
(23 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
⚫
{{philosophy|importance=mid|class=B|logic=yes}}
{{talk header|search=yes}}
{{talk header|search=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
⚫
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=Mid|logic=yes}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|maxarchivesize = 100K
Line 8: Line 10:
|archive = Talk:Argument from ignorance/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Argument from ignorance/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I|age=21|dounreplied=yes}}


== Article quality and sources ==

This is pretty much an "article from ignorance" now, or perhaps "article by diversion" for it zig-zags between various (often less than logical) examples. And of course, it is mostly source free. John Locke who coined the term is mentioned in passing at the end, but the article is in need of serious clean up. A lot of it seems to have been written by user Agenzen who stopped editing 2 years ago. I seem to have left him a message 2 years ago with a pointer to negation as failure, now that I have looked, but that point is not discussed in the article except in see also. In any case, the best way would be to have a shorter, referenced and to the point definition with a couple of well known examples, instead of of the logical jambalaya that exists now. I will do that. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 10:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

:Anyway, I went ahead and cleaned it up now, added WP:RS sources, etc. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 22:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

== Expression "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" ==

Ah, but it ''is'' evidence of absence (one knows what evidence is, yes? I hope?...). It is not ''proof'' of absence, which may be what people mean, but which is no excuse for mussing with the language. Quite a few references could be given, including [http://lesswrong.com/lw/ih/absence_of_evidence_is_evidence_of_absence/ this] one from the point of view of probability theory which is relevant to the case. [[User:Schissel|Schissel]] | [[User_talk:Schissel|Sound the Note!]] 15:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

== "In law" section ==

This section seems needlessly wordy. There are two real options: either the jury determines that the evidence of guilt is sufficient (so the person is "judged guilty") or not (so the person is "judged not guilty"). Instead the decision tree multiplies the complexity needlessly, by adding conditions that the person "really" is guilty or not.

I just don't see how this better explains the situation. [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] ([[User talk:Phiwum|talk]]) 16:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

== Suggested Removal of 2nd Paragraph ==

I suggest killing the paragraph that currently mentions Russell's teapot and raises the idea that there could be good reasons to believe that something doesn't exist.

Here's why.


== Definition ==
1. If there are good reasons to believe that something doesn't exist those 'good reasons' (if they are in any way valid) constitute a form of evidence or knowledge. No reason to remind people that the argument from ignorance may not apply where the adversaries are not ignorant.
2. Failure to state the reverse. Why say, "Sometimes where we know very little there's good reason to assume that a proposition is false." If we don't include the opposite possibility "Sometimes... that a proposition is true."
3. Lastly, to come to the point. Get this thing out of here because it belongs the God vs. No God debate and comes in unnecessarily and right up front rather than defining the fallacy itself which has much broader usage, and frankly, is the topic of the article. Worse still, these sentences shamelessly argue to rescue the specific perspective that, in the case of God vs. Atheism, (and I can back this up with Russell's famous teapot!) the atheist has good reason to believe the proposition of God to be false without committing the fallacy of argument from ignorance. Whether such a distinction is justifiably clarified I don't really care either way. That there is a kind of predictive and preemptive strike against the way someone might apply or misapply the argument from ignorance to a specific debate is just a silly joke. Again, get this out! Wikipedia is biased enough!


[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Argument_from_ignorance&diff=837590653&oldid=836587999 This edit] introduced a level of abstraction that made the intro more difficult to read. The previous version was simpler and more direct, not broken, and hence not in need of repair. I have now twice returned it to ''status quo ante''. Please discuss here instead of edit warring. [[User:Just plain Bill|Just plain Bill]] ([[User talk:Just plain Bill|talk]]) 23:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
If this is a real concern, eliminate the possibility of misapplication of the fallacy by clearer definition of the fallacy itself. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/5.67.242.251|5.67.242.251]] ([[User talk:5.67.242.251|talk]]) 22:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Violation of Laws of Logic ==
== The null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment ==


Claiming "This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false." is a clear violation of the Law of the Excluded Middle.
I have removed the [[Michelson–Morley experiment]] from the list of examples.


In other words, the possibilities can only be true or false. Insufficient information is not one of them.[[User:Magnetic Flux|Magnetic Flux]] ([[User talk:Magnetic Flux|talk]]) 03:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
The reason is that the article makes an unsourced claim that its [[null result]] is "strong evidence" that there is no [[luminiferous aether]].


:That is exactly right. You are abosolutely correct to point that out. Thats the reason I removed it but someone just reverted my edit without understanding the concept and when I am asking them for reasons they claim there are grammatical mistakes. And that become a valid reason to remove everything I wrote, can you believe that? Man if there is grammatical error then just fix it why remove every single thing? [[User:Adityaverma8998|Adityaverma8998]] ([[User talk:Adityaverma8998|talk]]) 06:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I have never seen such a claim, only that the [[luminiferous aether]] cannot explain the observed [[null result]], which is not the same (and which is not a logical fallacy).
::This is not how Wikipedia works. See [[WP:BRD]].
::Also, there is nothing wrong with the text as it was. {{tq|There may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false}} is short for {{tq|There may have been an insufficient investigation to either prove that the proposition is true or prove that the proposition is false}}. To assume that the meaning is {{tq|There may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is (either true or false)}} and that the proposition is a strictly boolean one with no fuzzy borders in the words is to assume that the writer is an idiot. Don't do that. And don't [[WP:WAR|edit-war]]. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 11:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
:::Actually if there are borderline cases then that is because the concepts within the propostion were not defined properly enough. Example - "The king of France has blue hair" now in this propostion what constitutes as "'''blue'''"? There are ''many shades of blue,'' so one might be tempted to think that this proposition is a case where borderlines occur and therefore propositions can be fuzzy to some degree. But the problem here is that the concept "blue" or the idea "blue" is '''not properly defined''' here. That is what is causing the problem here. A proposition can be either true or false and if there is some case where its truth value is hard to determine, then its becuase the concepts within that proposition are not well defined. But if thats the case, then it is no longer a proposition. So the point I made seems to me that it still holds.
:::And a propositions truth value being unknowable still doesnt change the fact that it either is true or its false, its merely stating that we cannot access its truth value but we "not being able to access the truth value" doesnt mean that the proposition can have any third truth value. So repeating myself its either true or false. [[User:Adityaverma8998|Adityaverma8998]] ([[User talk:Adityaverma8998|talk]]) 14:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
::::You will not stop edit-warring, so I am done with you. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 11:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


== "[[:Lack of imagination]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
There are many things I have never seen and a source (notable in the field of physics) making an argument from ignorance regarding this observation would justify reinserting the example. [[User:Lklundin|Lklundin]] ([[User talk:Lklundin|talk]]) 17:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lack_of_imagination&redirect=no Lack of imagination]</span> has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 18#Lack of imagination}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">[[User:Utopes|Utopes]] <sub>('''[[User talk:Utopes|talk]]''' / '''[[Special:Contributions/Utopes|cont]]''')</sub></span> 04:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:55, 7 October 2024

Definition

[edit]

This edit introduced a level of abstraction that made the intro more difficult to read. The previous version was simpler and more direct, not broken, and hence not in need of repair. I have now twice returned it to status quo ante. Please discuss here instead of edit warring. Just plain Bill (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of Laws of Logic

[edit]

Claiming "This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false." is a clear violation of the Law of the Excluded Middle.

In other words, the possibilities can only be true or false. Insufficient information is not one of them.Magnetic Flux (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly right. You are abosolutely correct to point that out. Thats the reason I removed it but someone just reverted my edit without understanding the concept and when I am asking them for reasons they claim there are grammatical mistakes. And that become a valid reason to remove everything I wrote, can you believe that? Man if there is grammatical error then just fix it why remove every single thing? Adityaverma8998 (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not how Wikipedia works. See WP:BRD.
Also, there is nothing wrong with the text as it was. There may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false is short for There may have been an insufficient investigation to either prove that the proposition is true or prove that the proposition is false. To assume that the meaning is There may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is (either true or false) and that the proposition is a strictly boolean one with no fuzzy borders in the words is to assume that the writer is an idiot. Don't do that. And don't edit-war. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually if there are borderline cases then that is because the concepts within the propostion were not defined properly enough. Example - "The king of France has blue hair" now in this propostion what constitutes as "blue"? There are many shades of blue, so one might be tempted to think that this proposition is a case where borderlines occur and therefore propositions can be fuzzy to some degree. But the problem here is that the concept "blue" or the idea "blue" is not properly defined here. That is what is causing the problem here. A proposition can be either true or false and if there is some case where its truth value is hard to determine, then its becuase the concepts within that proposition are not well defined. But if thats the case, then it is no longer a proposition. So the point I made seems to me that it still holds.
And a propositions truth value being unknowable still doesnt change the fact that it either is true or its false, its merely stating that we cannot access its truth value but we "not being able to access the truth value" doesnt mean that the proposition can have any third truth value. So repeating myself its either true or false. Adityaverma8998 (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will not stop edit-warring, so I am done with you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Lack of imagination" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Lack of imagination has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 18 § Lack of imagination until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Argument_from_ignorance&oldid=1249969244"