Ad Hoc Hypothesis

[DeistPaladin]

I've learned a new logical fallacy.

Wikipedia Article on Ad Hoc Hypothesis

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.

We see this a lot not just in apologetics but also in government conspiracy theories, UFO stories, astrology and new age woo. Cherished notions can be protected from contrary evidence by improvising new, though unlikely and unsubstantiated, claims. If you say, "well, maybe..." enough times, you can make anything fit.

As a cherished thought becomes overburdened by an ever-increasing number of unsupported, unproven, unlikely ad hoc hypotheses, occam's razor should be applied. Chances are good that when it looks like a duck it's because it is a duck.

[downbeatplumb]

I've learned a new logical fallacy.

Wikipedia Article on Ad Hoc Hypothesis

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.

We see this a lot not just in apologetics but also in government conspiracy theories, UFO stories, astrology and new age woo. Cherished notions can be protected from contrary evidence by improvising new, though unlikely and unsubstantiated, claims. If you say, "well, maybe..." enough times, you can make anything fit.

As a cherished thought becomes overburdened by an ever-increasing number of unsupported, unproven, unlikely ad hoc hypotheses, occam's razor should be applied. Chances are good that when it looks like a duck it's because it is a duck.

Ah the lengths people will go to to hold on to cherished ideas, the new member Statler comes to mind here.

My dad is awfull at this, he will cling to an idea even if you have the proof and wave it in his face.

[DeistPaladin]

Ah the lengths people will go to to hold on to cherished ideas, the new member Statler comes to mind here.

I haven't delved into Statler's posts yet but I had thought just how odd a choice that is for a Christian poster name. You'd think Statler and Waldorf would be the skeptics, mocking and deriding Fozzie the Apologist Bear.

[downbeatplumb]

Ah the lengths people will go to to hold on to cherished ideas, the new member Statler comes to mind here.

I haven't delved into Statler's posts yet but I had thought just how odd a choice that is for a Christian poster name. You'd think Statler and Waldorf would be the skeptics, mocking and deriding Fozzie the Apologist Bear.

You should visit he's a laugh a minute.

I thought that about the name too! but maybe he just likes muppets and who can blame him.

[little_monkey]

I've learned a new logical fallacy.

Wikipedia Article on Ad Hoc Hypothesis

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.

We see this a lot not just in apologetics but also in government conspiracy theories, UFO stories, astrology and new age woo. Cherished notions can be protected from contrary evidence by improvising new, though unlikely and unsubstantiated, claims. If you say, "well, maybe..." enough times, you can make anything fit.

As a cherished thought becomes overburdened by an ever-increasing number of unsupported, unproven, unlikely ad hoc hypotheses, occam's razor should be applied. Chances are good that when it looks like a duck it's because it is a duck.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but an ad hoc hypothesis is not a logical fallacy. It is quite frequently used in science to explain facts. There is nothing wrong here, in regard to the logical process. However, it does point that a theory, in need of an ad hoc hypothesis, might not be satisfactory, which often leads to a better theory that is more comprehensive, which would include the ad hoc hypothesis more as an integral part.

[Anomalocaris]

I've learned a new logical fallacy.

Wikipedia Article on Ad Hoc Hypothesis

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.

You mean making up shit as they go in the hope of laying down a road of shit that leads to the bible?

But seriously, the addition of ad hoc hypothesis is by itself not not necessarily without merit. An original hypothesis need not directly account for everything to have value. But the probability of the original hypothesis being basically correct decreases exponentially with increasing ratio of outcomes that require ad hoc hypothesis to explain. In rigourously defined cases in physics, one could calculate the decreased probability of the original case being correct with the addition of a an ad hoc hypothesis.

[DeistPaladin]

The slippery slope is sometimes true. A sometimes does lead to B. It's a logical fallacy when you ASSUME that A will inevitably lead to B without any evidence to support that assumption.

Correlation sometimes does mean causation. It's a logical fallacy when you ASSUME that correlation means causation without evidence to support that assumption.

There are ad hocs that are appropriate. See carbon dating. It works under all circumstances except for specified ones. It's a logical fallacy when apologists utilize it to keep their mythology intact despite all the contrary evidence.

[theVOID]

I've learned a new logical fallacy.

Wikipedia Article on Ad Hoc Hypothesis

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/

[theophilus]

You'd think Statler and Waldorf would be the skeptics, mocking and deriding Fozzie the Apologist Bear.

He is a skeptic. He seems very skeptical of some of the widely held scientific theories.

[Anomalocaris]

He has 0 skepticsm for the bible, you are like 2 peas in a pod.