Perfection!

[Purple Rabbit]

Oh my fuck.........


I can't believe that didn't make it clear for you.

It's NOT reason to believe that's my whole point. I claim nothing. I reject beliefs in which I do not know of any valid evidence, it's a DISbelief (no belief at all) that's that.

I have made no claim.

I said I was making no argument whatsoever, and I'm not. You've caught me up about this before incorrectly as you have also incorrectly this time. I said that I was merely stating the reason why *I* as far as I'm concerned [at least] have NO valid reason to believe. I didn't claim any valid reasons at all. I claimed nothing. *I* just consider it unreasonable TO believe when I DON'T know of any evidence/valid reasons by my own judgement.

It does not follow from absence of evidence of X that there is absence of X.

I NEVER claimed this. THAT is the argument of ignorance, but that is ALSO something which I have never claimed - and yet you have repeatedly claimed that I have. I speak of my own rejection of beliefs which I know of having no evidence to support them.... I do not speak of claiming that just because I think there's no evidence that it therefore doesn't exist. I never claimed that absence of evidence of X =no X. When did I ever claim that? Never. That's when.

EvF

Yeah fuck..

So in essence you're saying that the remark you keep inserting in every thread (that you belief you have no evidence) is not relevant at all. Why say it then?

[Edwardo Piet]

Because I do believe I have no evidence because I don't believe I know of any. It is an alternative to saying "I have no evidence so that's why I disbelieve" because that might seem like I am claiming absolute knowledge over not having evidence but I claim absolute knowledge over nothing (as in, not over anything).

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

I totally agree with: "I have no evidence of X so that's why I have no belief in X" and that could be relevant for debate on X since it is an open invitation to present evidence for X. But the faith statement you make of it ("I don't believe I know of any evidence for the existence of X in an objective or absolute sense") suggests that some inability to retrieve your own knowledge is presented as a reason (i.e. argument) for absence of belief. And that indeed is argument from ignorance.

If you question that you know X than you must also question that you believe X and infinite regress results: "I don't believe, that I don't believe, that I don't believe,...that I know of any evidence of X"

[Welsh cake]

I totally agree with: "I have no evidence of X so that's why I have no belief in X" and that could be relevant for debate on X since it is an open invitation to present evidence for X. But the faith statement you make of it ("I don't believe I know of any evidence for the existence of X in an objective or absolute sense") suggests that some inability to retrieve your own knowledge is presented as a reason (i.e. argument) for absence of belief. And that indeed is argument from ignorance.

If you question that you know X than you must also question that you believe X and infinite regress results: "I don't believe, that I don't believe, that I don't believe,...that I know of any evidence of X"

Purple Rabbit, just read his post already. He's saying that he doesn't know of any evidence that would prove 'perfection' objectively. It's a wonderfully honest response, given the subject matter. That is not an argument from incredulity.

EvF didn't make any such claim that he knows there is no evidence for perfection, that is absurd, and only if he said that could you flay him alive, but what you can't do is attack someone for simply stating "I don't know".

[Edwardo Piet]

Exactly. And PR - claiming that "I have no evidence" is MORE ignorant than claiming that I don't think I know of any evidence, clearly. Yes it goes on for infinite regress but at least I am making the point of being LESS ignorant than claiming absolute knowledge of knowing that there is no evidence (which I am incapable of honestly holding). The only reason I don't type an infinite amount of "I don't believe that don't believe that..." , etc. - is because that's clearly an impossible task - but nevertheless stating that I don't believe I know of any evidence is more intellectually honest than claiming that I simply "hold no evidence" - if we are to take that to mean "I KNOW I hold know evidence." I consider everything ultimately unknowable, including my own thoughts and beliefs (or lack thereof). That is what I am trying to clarify. All is unknowable... not only is evidence unfinalized because it isn't proof - but whether I know of any evidence or not is also unprovable and unknowable (I think).

("I don't believe I know of any evidence for the existence of X in an objective or absolute sense") suggests that some inability to retrieve your own knowledge is presented as a reason (i.e. argument) for absence of belief. And that indeed is argument from ignorance.

Please explain how that statement suggests any argument whatsoever. It's a statement that I don't believe that I know of the existence of any evidence for X. Where the fuck is the argument(s) and/or reason/reasoning?

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

Exactly. And PR - claiming that "I have no evidence" is MORE ignorant than claiming that I don't think I know of any evidence, clearly. Yes it goes on for infinite regress but at least I am making the point of being LESS ignorant than claiming absolute knowledge of knowing that there is no evidence (which I am incapable of honestly holding). The only reason I don't type an infinite amount of "I don't believe that don't believe that..." , etc. - is because that's clearly an impossible task - but nevertheless stating that I don't believe I know of any evidence is more intellectually honest than claiming that I simply "hold no evidence" - if we are to take that to mean "I KNOW I hold know evidence." I consider everything ultimately unknowable, including my own thoughts and beliefs (or lack thereof). That is what I am trying to clarify. All is unknowable... not only is evidence unfinalized because it isn't proof - but whether I know of any evidence or not is also unprovable and unknowable (I think).

I am sympathetic to the caution you strive for but a plea for infinite regress does not make it into valid reasoning. To say that you know you hold no evidence does not add anything new to your statement that you hold no evidence because how could you comment on it when you wouldn't know that you held no evidence?

("I don't believe I know of any evidence for the existence of X in an objective or absolute sense") suggests that some inability to retrieve your own knowledge is presented as a reason (i.e. argument) for absence of belief. And that indeed is argument from ignorance.

Please explain how that statement suggests any argument whatsoever. It's a statement that I don't believe that I know of the existence of any evidence for X. Where the fuck is the argument(s) and/or reason/reasoning?

When you start with "I don't believe" the focus is on the fact that it is a statement of belief, not a statement about what you know. You could believe anything. It has been shown in excess here on AF that it is possible to believe in anything in the face of contrary evidence. Even that you have no evidence if you had evidence. The "I don't believe" really cripples your statement IMO. So it becomes a statement where you argue from one believe to the next. The believe X (i.e. that you know about no evidence) as such becomes a reason, an argument for believe in Y (i.e. that there is no evidence).

But after having discussed this thoroughly it is clear to me that I read to much in your words. You don't intend what I read into it. Though your wording will never be mine I will refrain from commenting on this reappearing statement of yours. I hope you didn't feel offended by the rather meticulous questioning on my part.

[tackattack]

I believe PR is just applying Occam's razor to your statement and would prefer the more concise fallacy, than the more verbose uselessly redundant statement.

[Edwardo Piet]

@ PR, I certainly don't feel offended. I think you are confused by what I mean.....

When I say "I don't believe I know of any evidence", it is opposed to: "I don't know of any evidence" - which is a more absolutist claim. Hence I am being more intellectually honest than if I claimed to simply know I had know evidence because - how can I know that I know of no evidence?

It's as far away from the argument from ignorance as you can get, if this is the argument from ignorance, then I guess any statement is!!

Once more, if you can please cite where I made the argument from ignorance PR (assuming you know what it is) then you are more than welcome to charge me with it. You're also welcome to charge me without citing where I made it - so long as you make it clear that you are making a joke because you can't even cite where I made it.

An ignorant regress is indeed not required. But when someone says they "don't believe that X" - it is commonly understood to be not an absolute claim. So I was just trying to be accurate and clearly intellectually honest - the opposite of the argument from ignorance.

@tackattack. Yes I am being more verbose for accuracy - but my problem is not with PR wanting more conciseness from me - my problem is with his claim that I have made the argument from ignorance.

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

Since you insist.

To me it is simple. In general, no inferences can be drawn from a lack of evidence. If you say things like:

I myself personally believe that I know of no evidence whatsoever of any absolute meaning or values in the universe whatsoever anyway....

as to suggest an inference from that (whatever the inference is) you are committing the argument from personal incredulity fallacy which is a variation on the argument from ignorance:

The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

However, since you have extensively argued that you draw no conclusion from the lack of evidence or your belief in the lack of evidence it is not a syllogism. In that case (without conclusion) the remark becomes irrelevant and can be ignored altogether. And that is just what I suggested from the first time I encountered this phrase of you here on AF. And that is just what I will do when I encounter it again.

[Edwardo Piet]

The thing is though.... I haven't said anything that makes me remotely guilty of The Argument From Ignorance though have I? (or indeed the argument from personal incredulity therefore).

...because I have not said that I assume that it's false or that some other conclusion that is unproven I assume to be true. I have said I don't think I know of any evidence, that's it.

Can you please put in bold the part where I actually say something like "Because I don't believe I know of any evidence - I assume there isn't any!" or "Because I don't believe I know of no evidence.... then X conclusion must be right instead!!"

I haven't said anything like that.

The phrase I am using doesn't infer the argument from ignorance at all - the phrase I am using is exactly the sort of thing one can say using the English language that shows "I don't know... and not only that - I don't know that I don't know... so I might know, but I'm not claiming anything [so hence, where is the argument from ignorance? Everyone must be automatically committing the argument from ignorance whenever they make a statement if my statement is committing it - when it's about as far from committing it as you can get.]".

Seriously though... please quote where I have said anything that equates remotely to: "Because X isn't proven then X must be false" or "because X isn't proven then Y must be true"....

If you substitute my "I don't know" for "isn't proven" - I still simply leave it at that... "I don't know" - I don't go on to say "therefore X is false" or "therefore Y" so I have no idea what you're talking about because I make no conclusion.

I am not even making a claim really.... that's the whole point. I'm making a statement of my own belief and then saying I'm not even sure if my belief is accurate in regards to the absence of evidence because I am not absolutely sure of anything (I think) - I'm not making any conclusion that falls into The Argument From Ignorance.

EvF