New vid: argument from ignorance explained through mining

[Edwardo Piet]

Are you 'under the thumb'? Who wears the trousers? Hehe.

[robvalue]

Yeah, she wears the trousers. All of them. I have to wander around in my pants.

We have a funny kind of relationship, really. Day to day, she's in charge and orders me around (in a nice way) as she knows what stuff needs sorting out. But when something really difficult or important comes along, I get wheeled out and I feel like she relies on my strength.

[Edwardo Piet]

That's really sweet Rob.

Yeah, she wears the trousers. All of them. I have to wander around in my pants.

And this made me "lol".

[robvalue]

Thanks We work well as a team!

I need to do a video with more evidence that she exists. I'm struggling to think what more I can possibly present to you people

[Edwardo Piet]

I can't remember if we heard her voice on any of your videos yet, or if I imagined that lol.

[Simon Moon]

Which religious person has used this argument on this forum?

Other than your excessive use of unsupported assertions, it is your go to argument.

[Simon Moon]

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

The other form the argument from ignorance can take is the "argument from personal incredulity".

This usually pops up in reality (evolution) vs creationism debates.

"I can't understand how that could have happened naturally, therefore, god(s) did it".

[Excited Penguin]

I agree that atheists tend to overuse these sorts of arguments with people who either can't grasp them or don't care to and thus poison the conversation for nothing. Theists are people, first and foremost, not philosophy minors who need their fallacies pointed out. You need to establish a common ground first, and then make them see for themselves why their arguments are not solid, if they aren't.

[Excited Penguin]

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.

Actually it's called the fallacy fallacy and yeah, it's definitely the most commonly used logical fallacy on this forum and probably on the internet. Learning about logical fallacies is fine but often times people will point out them in this sort of scenario:

Person A: Well Glen Beck is in favor of the Iraq war, and he's an idiot so I think the war is bad.
Person B: That's a logical fallacy: ad hominem!

Ironically just calling someone out on a logical fallacy and not attempting to address their root idea (in the example you would still have to prove that the war is good) is the fallacy fallacy. It's frequently an attempt to kill the discussion and smugly feel intellectually superior to the other person without actually having to present any ideas. There have been some people on these forums who were terrible about this. Back when DeistPaladin posted he would scan every post that he disagreed with for anything that might be a logical fallacy and then point them out, but very rarely address the actual point. There are lots of other people who do it to a lesser degree too. Again the irony is that by lazily pointing out logical fallacies the person is committing one. That's why even when someone annoyingly strawman's me or something I don't say 'Strawman!!! Wah wah waaah" Instead I would say something like 'you are misrepresenting what was saying, here is what I actually meant' That pushes the discussion forward, most of the time crying logical fallacy is more of an end to a discussion that upsets the other person and degenerates to name calling.

It's also important to note that just because someone uses logical fallacies doesn't make them wrong nor does being careful about not using them make someone right.

My thoughts exactly.

[Edwardo Piet]

I think it's fine to point out logical fallacies if all you are doing is pointing out that the reasoning they used is invalid.

Also, it's not the Fallacy Fallacy to point out their fallacy and not address their point, if you want to point out that their argument is invalid and not address their point then that's fine you haven't committed a fallacy. The Fallacy Fallacy is actually when you do that and then claim that their conclusion is necessarily wrong just because the reasoning that got them there is fallacious. Ironically it's important you understand what the Fallacy Fallacy actually is before you point out that people are wrong in pointing out logical fallacies, if you then back that point up by saying that they are committing the Fallacy Fallacy when they aren't unless they insist the conclusion must be wrong no matter what just because the reasoning that got them there is fallacious.