New vid: argument from ignorance explained through mining

[robvalue]

I put this in the religious section because it addresses an argument used incredibly frequently by some theists, and they can't seem to grasp why it isn't valid.

The "argument from ignorance" (which is just the name it happens to have, it's not meant to be an insult) is the claim that a statement is (probably) true because it can't be shown to be false. My new video below demonstrates why this argument does not work, so please, please stop using it.

http://youtu.be/BzxMXzdaxtI

[robvalue]

I'll just give this a bump then I'll let it drop

Any feedback welcome.

[CapnAwesome]

I love the accent and the video is a fine demonstration of that logical fallacy. Honestly though, I think the subject matter is kind of over-discussed already. People on the internet are obsessed with logical fallacies and other people's use of them (and the wikipedia list of them). I think the topic of them is over used and often times misused to end a conversation.

[Edwardo Piet]

I find logical fallacies fascinating and learning them is important for avoiding them. (cognitive biases are also interesting as well). Turning my music off to watch the video now.

[Mystic]

Which religious person has used this argument on this forum?

[robvalue]

Just about all of them, you did so the other day saying I hadn't shown knowledge of God doesn't exist; as if that is a reason to believe it does exist.

[Edwardo Piet]

Ok finished watching.

Fucking brilliant Rob. I am already familar with the logical fallacy The Argument from Ignorance and I comprehend it because I'm good at abstract thinking...

...but I really thoroughally enjoyed your video AND still got something from it. Your analogy is fucking awesome. It allows me to grasp it more intutively and habitually with that visual metaphor. What an amazing analogy. It means I don't have to stop and think as much "Is this the Argument from Ignorance? Looks like it is." I can just spot it more easily and swiftly.

That's why analogies are so awesome. They illuminate things so well, when they're a truly good analogy like this one, so even if you already understand the logic abstractly you can still take something from it.

Really really enjoyed it .

+ LMFAO all your videos are so damn entertaining. I assume it was totally deliberate. I noticed the little hidden joke in the video, the Easter Egg. I will leave the spoiler of the hidden joke in this video as optional under a hide tag for those who can't find it:

Spoiler for hidden joke in video:

---

After Rob finishes explaining his visual metaphor, his analogy, and says that it was a nice story... he move the paper and you may see another piece of paper underneath if very quickly before he places it with the "analysis of a claim" piece of paper. You may notice the words "Dear Santa". Pause the video. It has a hidden letter from him to Santa and it's fucking hilarious IMO

---

I highly and strongly recommend Robs video for everyone including those who understand the fallacy in abstract but don't have an analogy for it yet. Awesome.

[Mystic]

To be honest, the most common logical fallacy I've seen on these forums is misapplication of logical fallacies to where there are none (which is a form of a straw man) by giving the sense the person is saying this and this which is a form of a fallacy.

[robvalue]

Wow, thanks Evie! It kind of hit me out of nowhere one day, as an analogy. Poor analogies often confuse things more than they help, but I felt this one really gets to the point of the absurd nature of the argument.

Haha yes, that was a deliberate Easter egg, I knew you'd like it And I tried to make it entertaining as I know you would probably like my silly sense of humour!

[Mystic]

Just about all of them, you did so the other day saying I hadn't shown knowledge of God doesn't exist; as if that is a reason to believe it does exist.

See, I never gave the impression that this was reason to believe it does exist. That's you doing a straw man. I'm stating you've asserted your viewpoint which you haven't proven and I am stating a viewpoint which opposes that viewpoint and doesn't take any of what you asserted to be facts which I haven't proven. 

This just proves my point. People want to label everything with a logical fallacy, that they constantly straw man a person's post or discussion and miss what the person is trying to say.