Fun with fallacies 3: Ya’ll ignant!
Black Label Logic | January 24, 2016 | by Black Label Logic
-------------------------
[ignorant]The argument from ignorance is a frequent guest in most
debates on religion. The fallacy here is fairly straight forward, and
is based on the foundation principle that a non-falsifiable claim must
be regarded as false. The fallacy committed in this case, is to assert
that a claim is true, because it has not, or cannot be proven false.

Those of you who have read your Karl Popper know that this a
fundamental error in reasoning, and here is why. If we adopt a
principle where all claims that cannot be falsified or have not yet
been falsified, that has great implications. See the following
conversation:

_Person 1: So, you were out of town last week, your wife banged half
the Harlem Globetrotters and the starting lineup of the Pacers. _

_Person 2: That isn’t true, you can’t prove that it’s true. _

_Person 1: Well, you can’t prove that it’s not, so until you can,
your wife fucked half the globetrotters and Pacers. _

That’s is a bit of a glib example, but it teaches us the lesson that
until something has been proven true, proven false, or as long as it
remains impossible to prove it false, a claim must be regarded as
false.

In the case of a criminal trial, the charges have to be believed until
prove false: This would translate into “guilty until proven
innocent”

Person 1: An allmighty being just told me that you have been living
your life in the wrong way. It said that those who have should share
with those who have not. So give me half your shit.

Person 2: I can’t prove that you’re full of shit, so here is my
ATM card and PIN.

It also puts the burden of proof onto the person saying “No, there
is no evidence for that” rather than on the person saying “This is
true”.

 

-------------------------
Archived from https://theredarchive.com/blog/Black-Label-Logic/fun-with-fallacies-3-yallignant.24383