Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Are you sure is me who is arguing out of ignorance? are you sure you 
> have the last word on the subject because you know absolutely everything 
> there is to know about it? Are you sure the life threatening experienced 
> are not memorized efficiently for decades of some UFO interactions? Are 
> you sure I'm a complete illiterate?

> You should ask this questions before assuming, hence writing out of 
> ignorance, about someone. take this also a s friendly advice.

  You clearly don't understand what "argument from ignorance" means.
It does not mean "you are an ignorant person, your argument is bollocks".

  "Argument from ignorance" is a form of argumentation where a positive
claim is drawn from something not having an explanation. For example,
a classic form of argument from ignorance is: "Science can't explain where
the universe came from. Thus it must have been created by God." In other
words, if something cannot be explained (by science in general or by the
person you are talking with in particular), that's taken as evidence for
the claim.

  You see this all the time in all kinds of situations, especially ufology.
Every "unexplained" phenomenon is taken as evidence of UFOs, the main
argument being that it's unexplained. Hence argument from ignorance.

  Of course this is a completely flawed argument. If something is unexplained,
then it is unexplained. Taking it as evidence of an explanation is flawed
argumentation. In fact, it's self-contradictory. It's basically saying
"this cannot be explained, thus it can be explained".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message