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: March 29, 2024, 5:11 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ad Hoc Hypothesis
#1
Ad Hoc Hypothesis
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.

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.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
...      -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
...       -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Reply
#2
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.

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.



You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.

Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.




 








Reply
#3
RE: Ad Hoc Hypothesis
(October 19, 2010 at 1:22 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: 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.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
...      -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
...       -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Reply
#4
RE: Ad Hoc Hypothesis
(October 19, 2010 at 1:46 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:
(October 19, 2010 at 1:22 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: 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.



You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.

Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.




 








Reply
#5
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.

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.

Reply
#6
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.

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

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.





Reply
#7
RE: Ad Hoc Hypothesis
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.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
...      -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
...       -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Reply
#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
#9
RE: Ad Hoc Hypothesis
(October 19, 2010 at 1:46 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: 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.


His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Romans 1:20 ESV

Reply
#10
RE: Ad Hoc Hypothesis
He has 0 skepticsm for the bible, you are like 2 peas in a pod.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Testing a Hypothesis about the Supernatural Bahana 103 16045 June 18, 2018 at 2:47 pm
Last Post: SteveII
  Trying to simplify my Consciousness hypothesis Won2blv 83 13545 February 21, 2017 at 1:31 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  A hypothesis about consciousness Won2blv 12 3898 February 12, 2017 at 9:31 pm
Last Post: Won2blv
  God of the gaps, magical hypothesis, philosophical meandering. schizo pantheist 36 8092 January 23, 2015 at 12:04 am
Last Post: SteelCurtain
  Atheism 101: The Null Hypothesis little_monkey 6 1414 July 6, 2013 at 12:32 pm
Last Post: pineapplebunnybounce
  Ad Hoc Hypothesis DeistPaladin 4 2335 June 14, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Last Post: Rhizomorph13



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)