|
 |
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> Am 26.09.2014 17:00, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
> > news://news.povray.org:119/54256812@news.povray.org here I explain that
> > are not only theories. Aliens, can't be discarded, a lot of BS about
> > them, but still many things without explanation,
> Now /that/ is an "argument from ignorance": Jumping from the fact that
> there are still "many things without explanation" to the conclusion that
> therefore a given theory X (in this case, "there are aliens"), that
> would /happen/ to explain them, /must/ be true.
I was going to point out how that is indeed a textbook example of
argument from ignorance, but you beat me to it.
I don't know what Saul thinks said term means (since he refuses to
tell), but it does indeed mean to take an unknown and take it as
supporting evidence for a claim.
One of the most typical and prevalent examples is making an argument
for the existence of God as: "Science can't explain where the Universe
came from." This kind of fallacious argumentation is surprisingly
common. Very similar arguments are very common among other woo fields
such as ufology and believers in ghosts/the supernatural (in fact,
I bet that if you made a google search for "unexplained", the vast
majority of hits will be about either of those subjects.)
"Argument from ignorance" does *not* mean something like "you are
just making that claim because you don't know enough about the
subject in question" (even though the fallacy is a bit unfortunately
named, and may give that impression).
> But you're right indeed: Aliens can't be discarded. Nor have they been
> confirmed to have set on this planet (or even come into its vicinity) to
> this date.
As the original discussion I was referring to in my previous post was
about the origin of life on Earth, while aliens cannot be definitively
discarded, it seems highly unlikely (and, ultimately, it just needlessly
shifts the question of the origin of life to another planet).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
