Talk:Argument from ignorance

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Argument from ignorance article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 21 days

Philosophy: Logic Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Definition

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

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]

"Lack of imagination" listed at Redirects for discussion

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]