Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: July 19, 2025, 1:38 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ad Hoc Hypothesis
#8
RE: Ad Hoc Hypothesis
(October 19, 2010 at 1:16 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I've learned a new logical fallacy.

Wikipedia Article on Ad Hoc Hypothesis

Quote:In science and philosophy, an ad hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. Ad hoc hypothesizing is compensating for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form.

I used to mock these as "fudge factors" but now I've learned a more sophisticated term.

What is even worse is the fact than most times when people devise an ad hoc hypothesis it is as an objection to an argument against the position, such as Plantinga's ad hoc to Rowe's "evidential argument from evil" and posits the existence of phenomenon that the person making the ad hoc hypothesis doesn't even believe to be true.

Plantinga proposed that sin was caused by angels falling to earth, it was a theodicy that he used to show that Rowe's argument cannot disprove all logically possible conceptions of God, though he doesn't believe it for a second, thus the hypothesis he proposed to solve the problem is one that doesn't even fit with his own theology, so he hasn't absolved his own beliefs from the evidential argument, he only posited a logically possible scenario where God being omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent is not incompatible with evil even if there is no 'necessary evil' leading to a greater good.

Another example was the Htchens VS Sharpton debate where Rev Sharpton was arguing from a weak deist standpoint, proposing many solutions to criticisms that simply are not compatible with what he actually believes, that being rather fundamentalist Christian theism.

Imo to use such a tactic automatically makes you intellectually bankrupt, which is exactly what we expect from apologists anyway, even Plantinga admitted that God comes first and intellectualism comes second, and that any refutation of his beliefs, no matter how sound and valid, will never shake him. Thus he comes up with utter shit half the time to defend weak theism, but never manages to defend his own theology in the same way/
.
Reply



Messages In This Thread
Ad Hoc Hypothesis - by DeistPaladin - October 19, 2010 at 1:16 pm
RE: Ad Hoc Hypothesis - by downbeatplumb - October 19, 2010 at 1:22 pm
RE: Ad Hoc Hypothesis - by DeistPaladin - October 19, 2010 at 1:46 pm
RE: Ad Hoc Hypothesis - by downbeatplumb - October 19, 2010 at 2:04 pm
RE: Ad Hoc Hypothesis - by theophilus - October 20, 2010 at 1:26 pm
RE: Ad Hoc Hypothesis - by little_monkey - October 19, 2010 at 2:44 pm
RE: Ad Hoc Hypothesis - by Anomalocaris - October 19, 2010 at 3:08 pm
RE: Ad Hoc Hypothesis - by DeistPaladin - October 19, 2010 at 5:11 pm
RE: Ad Hoc Hypothesis - by theVOID - October 19, 2010 at 5:47 pm
RE: Ad Hoc Hypothesis - by Anomalocaris - October 20, 2010 at 2:01 pm

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Testing a Hypothesis about the Supernatural Bahana 103 22651 June 18, 2018 at 2:47 pm
Last Post: SteveII
  Trying to simplify my Consciousness hypothesis Won2blv 83 19423 February 21, 2017 at 1:31 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  A hypothesis about consciousness Won2blv 12 5077 February 12, 2017 at 9:31 pm
Last Post: Won2blv
  God of the gaps, magical hypothesis, philosophical meandering. schizo pantheist 36 10594 January 23, 2015 at 12:04 am
Last Post: SteelCurtain
  Atheism 101: The Null Hypothesis little_monkey 6 1887 July 6, 2013 at 12:32 pm
Last Post: pineapplebunnybounce
  Ad Hoc Hypothesis DeistPaladin 4 2542 June 14, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Last Post: Rhizomorph13



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)